Fuzzy Win-Win: A Novel Approach to Quantify Win-Win Using Fuzzy Logic
, Ahmad B. Hassanat 2,*,†, Ahmad S. Tarawneh 3,†, David Carfì 4,†and Abdullah Almuhaimeed 5,*,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a novel way to measure the win-win situation using Fuzzy logic. A mathematical model is presented that aids negotiators in quantifying their winning percentages. The proposed model is illustrated in real-life negotiation scenarios, namely the Iraqi-Jordanian oil deal, and the iron ore negotiation. The idea of this paper is interesting. Also, this paper has a certain degree of innovation. My comments are listed below.
- The main objectives of the research are defined at the introduction of the study.
- I think this paper lacks in the methodological contains. A description of the methods applied is not well documented and supported.
- There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches, no discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of the new approach. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with literature ones.
- There are some unnecessary references in the Reference section that must be removed.
Author Response
1. The main objectives of the research are defined at the introduction of the study.
Response, we highlighted the main objective, contribution, research gap, and motivation of this study.
2. I think this paper lacks in the methodological contains. A description of the methods applied is not well documented and supported.
Response: we further clarified the methods applied and added a schematic diagram to show the whole process at a glance as advised by the reviewer.
3. There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches, no discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of the new approach. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with literature ones.
Response: We added a new subsection showing the Conceptual comparison of the proposed model to the traditional win-win approach which is the norm in most related research, we also discussed the main advantage of the proposed model in the same subsection, the limitation and drawbacks of the proposed model is highlighted in the conclusion section.
4. There are some unnecessary references in the Reference section that must be removed.
Response: We referred to a large number of references to demonstrate the relevance and widespread application of the win-win notion in a variety of study fields. However, we removed any citations that were somewhat outside of the scope of the study, resulting in a considerable reduction in the number of references as advised by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report-
- 1. Introduction section will have to improve giving the research gaps. I prefer a schematic diagram of the proposed approach so that audience can catch the novelty at a glance.
- To show the actual novelty insert a Table at the end of the Introduction section showing related publication chronologically from updated literature study. This part would basically focus the hierarchy of literature study in brief showing your work’s novelty.
- Remove inappropriate citations. The standard number of citations for a research paper that most of the journals like is 40-60. But this article contains 114 citations. So, authors are asked to minimize these numbers.
- Application of Fuzzy logic is not clear. Improve the Equations (3-4) with the standard notation of membership function having variable like x, y etc. “seller price” should be replaced by “selling price”
Author Response
1. Introduction section will have to improve giving the research gaps. I prefer a schematic diagram of the proposed approach so that audience can catch the novelty at a glance.
Response: we showed the research gap in the introduction, and we made a schematic diagram of the proposed approach as remarkably advised by the reviewer.
2. To show the actual novelty insert a Table at the end of the Introduction section showing related publication chronologically from updated literature study. This part would basically focus the hierarchy of literature study in brief showing your work’s novelty.
Response: We added a summary table showing a number of related publications in chronological order, and showing the various research areas that utilized the traditional win-win concept.
3. Remove inappropriate citations. The standard number of citations for a research paper that most of the journals like is 40-60. But this article contains 114 citations. So, authors are asked to minimize these numbers.
Response: We referred to a large number of references to demonstrate the relevance and widespread application of the win-win notion in a variety of study fields. However, we removed any citations that were somewhat outside of the scope of the study, resulting in a reduction in the number of references as advised by the reviewer.
4. Application of Fuzzy logic is not clear. Improve the Equations (3-4) with the standard notation of membership function having variable like x, y etc. “seller price” should be replaced by “selling price”
Response: We made the application of the fuzzy logic clearer, for equations (3-4), it would be nice to standardize them, however, most of the Tables and figures in the analysis are dependent on these equations, if we made them in standard forms, it would be difficult for the readers to follow up the results by applying the equation on given data. In our paper, “Seller price” is the “seller wanted price” and not necessary it will be equal to the “selling price”, which concerns the price of which the deal secured. Sorry for this ambiguity, we clarified this in the methodology section.
Reviewer 3 Report
- here are too many redundant references in the introduction, some of which can be deleted, such as “including Economy [1,5–9], Business [10–14], 17Game Theory [15–20], Sustainability [21–23], Biology [24–28], Policy [29–31], Agriculture 18 [32,33], Health [34–36], Education [37–40], Social science [41–44], Engineering [45–47], 19 Tourism [48,49], etc.“ In this paragraph, it is ok to reserve 1-2 references for each word.
- What is the motivation for the paper? What are the main contributions of this study? These need to be explicitly addressed in the introduction
- The description of the method section seems a bit confusing, and the basic concepts and definitions of the method need to be clarified.
- Comparative analysis should be conducted, so as to show the advantages of the proposed method compared with existing methods.
- Figure 5 is unclear, and a clearer picture needs to be presented for the reader's convenience.
Author Response
1. here are too many redundant references in the introduction, some of which can be deleted, such as “including Economy [1,5–9], Business [10–14], 17Game Theory [15–20], Sustainability [21–23], Biology [24–28], Policy [29–31], Agriculture 18 [32,33], Health [34–36], Education [37–40], Social science [41–44], Engineering [45–47], 19 Tourism [48,49], etc.“ In this paragraph, it is ok to reserve 1-2 references for each word.
Response: We referred to a large number of references to demonstrate the relevance and widespread application of the win-win notion in a variety of study fields. However, we removed all redundant references and all of which somewhat outside of the scope of the study, resulting in a reduction in the number of references.
2. What is the motivation for the paper? What are the main contributions of this study? These need to be explicitly addressed in the introduction
Response: we explicitly addressed the motivation and main contributions of the study in the introduction section, as advised by the reviewer.
3. The description of the method section seems a bit confusing, and the basic concepts and definitions of the method need to be clarified.
Response: yes, there was confusing in the “seller price” and “selling/buying price”, we clarified all confusions, adding a new schematic diagram of the proposed approach so that audience can catch the novelty at a glance, resulting in improving the description of the method section, as advised by the reviewer.
4. Comparative analysis should be conducted, so as to show the advantages of the proposed method compared with existing methods.
Response: We added a new subsection showing the Conceptual comparison of the proposed model to the traditional win-win approach which is the norm in most related research, we also discussed the main advantage of the proposed model in the same subsection, the limitation and drawbacks of the proposed model is highlighted in the conclusion section.
5. Figure 5 is unclear, and a clearer picture needs to be presented for the reader's convenience.
Response Yes, it was, now we changed all pictures to be vector images, and their resolutions have improved significantly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version of this paper is improved by considering the reviewer's comments. But, one thing is that the citation style of the references is not uniform. I would suggest authors make all citations of references in the text in a uniform manner. The paper may be accepted after considering this minor issue.
Author Response
The revised version of this paper is improved by considering the reviewer's comments. But, one thing is that the citation style of the references is not uniform. I would suggest authors make all citations of references in the text in a uniform manner. The paper may be accepted after considering this minor issue.
Response: Thank you for your efforts, we utilized the MDPI Latex template for this work, which uniforms the citation format for all citations. However, if the reviewer refers to "International Iron Ore Negotiations (2005-2009)," however, we put a numeric reference after the years to avoid ambiguity.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article has been improved satisfactorily.
Author Response
This article has been improved satisfactorily.
Response: Thank you for this encouraging comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has addressed my concerns and I think the current version is acceptable
Author Response
The author has addressed my concerns and I think the current version is acceptable.
Response: Thank you for this encouraging comment.
