Intelligent Decision Support Systems—An Analysis of Machine Learning and Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have done thorough study on this topic. The objective and the organisation of the paper is well made and clear.  But there are minor changes to be done before the publication.

1. In Table 5, figure 5,  the journal name Hindawi has typo mistake.

2.  White spaces can be removed in the section 3.

3. In the manuscript, most of the places has " Error! Reference source not found". For eg. "The detail of similar keyword and the purpose for which these are considered are given in Error! Reference source not found.." Figure number citations, etc are having issues.

4. In section 2.6, authors mentioned about the eluding repetitions. How does it is achieved? Repetitions are identified based on what?

5. On basis of what the Criteria for assessment of the selected papers are determined?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Intelligent Decision Support Systems – An Analysis of Machine Learning and Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods”  explores the integration of machine learning and MCDM methods, that are used in diverse application areas.

Below are the comments and suggestions:

·       Include some considered results in the Abstract.

·       In the abstract authors are writing “literature from the 05 years, 2015 to 2020, is searched and consid-ered in the study on the basis of quality assessment criteria” and on page 2 and in conclusion section, there is statement …”In the light of importance and effectiveness of DSS in various domain, a systematic literature study is conducted for the last five (05) years.” Which is correct 2015-2020 or the last five years? while I see there are some old references in the study such as….

[14] B. Kitchenham, “Procedures for performing systematic reviews,” Keele, UK, Keele University, vol. 33, no. 2004, pp. 1-26, 2004.

[15] S. Keele, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE, 2007.

[16] B. Kitchenham, Charters, S, “Guidelines for performing systematic literaturereviews in software engineering,” In: Evidence-Based Software Engineering., 2007.

Write an exact statement about the literature/data years.

In some literature year of the study is not mentioned e.g [51], write complete references as your study is based on a specific year’s literature.

·       On page 3,6,7,8,9,10,12,15,16,17,22, 24 and 28, there is some error statement, correct that…Error! Reference source not found..

·       Tables and Figures are not cited inside the main text,

·       Correct the statement, on page 2…Intelligent decision support system is h hot area of study for the researchers where they try to explore new algorithms to estimate multiple criteria and propose new methods for improving the capabilities of decision support systems.

·       Why research questions are written 2 times? i.e on page 2 and in table 1.

·       The below statement is written many times, minimize it…Total six (06) libraries were search for the relevant papers.

·       The statement is repeated many times….Last fives years’ paper are selected.

·       Page 14, the statement is incomplete… Detail of the quality assessment measure, their necessity, weights and the mathematical equation is shown in….?

·       Re-write the conclusion section in a concise way.

·       Also mentioned how did you achieve your objectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have incorporated most of the the changes.

I have one concern:

I was hoping you would not write the research questions two times in the manuscript, as I highlighted in the first round.

Write one time and the second time, give the reference, "as mentioned above/earlier," or use such a statement.  

Author Response

Point 1: Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the

manuscript.

 Response 1: The reference are cross checked and are found relevant to the contents of the manuscript.

Point 2: Any revisions made to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.

Response 2: The menuscript was revised and the possible revisions are marked up using the “Track Changes” in addition to the changes made in revised 1 version of the paper.

Point 3: Please provide a short cover letter detailing your changes for the editors’ and referees’ approval.

Response 3: The details regarding .changes for the editors and referees are mentioned.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx