A Comprehensive MCDM-Based Approach for Object-Oriented Metrics Selection Problems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, your paper should be revised carefully as it has the following issues:

1. Rewrite the abstract considering the context, challenge, aim, method, results and implications.

2. The introduction is poorly written. Include the research questions as well.

3. Research gap should be clarified.

4. Motivation behind the work should be discussed.

5. Don't use 'novel' as the novelty of the paper is not clear.

6. Research methodologies is not bad.

7. Research results should be discussed further.

8. Include the sensitivity analysis, read and use the following useful works: Intelligent Emotion and Sensory Remote Prioritisation for Patients with Multiple Chronic Diseases; Federated learning for IoMT applications: a standardisation and benchmarking framework of intrusion detection systems; Hospital selection framework for remote MCD patients based on fuzzy q-rung orthopair environment.

9. Implications behind this selection should be discussed stating the benefited partners and managerial Decision makers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

When the title of the article is read, it is thought that a new MCDM method has been developed from the article. However, the fuzzy DEMATEL method, which is a well-known MCDM method, was used in the article. This creates a dilemma.

There is nothing interesting in the article, except for the topic of the article.

Reference is given in the abstract of the article.

First of all, it's not a good introduction. What is the problem for which the answer is sought in the article? Why was this article written on this problem? Etc. Detailed answers to the questions were not provided.

In addition, the contribution of this article to the literature is not clear.

There is no literature review. The subject of the article and studies using the Fuzzy DEMATEL method could have been included at least.

Results are not detailed. The results of the applied method should be explained in detail.

The conclusion section of the article is too short. 

There is no discussion section in the article.

The above-mentioned shortcomings must be overcome by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be published 

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the corrections/additions I requested from the authors were made by the authors.