New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommended “Major Revision” based on the following points:
|
|
||||
|
|
Check the English grammar throughout the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to express my gratitude for the comments made by the reviewers regarding this manuscript. They have certainly contributed to the scientific improvement of this article. In this way, we authors feel flattered by the professionalism with which they analyzed our proposal. Below I present the answers and justifications to the questions raised in the first round of review:
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: “Abstract is poor. Authors are requested to rewrite it and focused on the main research gap and your developments in this article in a compact form.”
Reply: thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the abstract.
Comment 2: “Need more current literature survey in the introduction section. Authors should cite the following recent articles .
Maity, S., Chakraborty, A., De, S.K. et al. A study of an EOQ model of green items with the effect of carbon emission under pentagonal intuitionistic dense fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 27, 15033–15055 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08636-5
Banik, B., Alam, S. & Chakraborty, A. Comparative study between GRA and MEREC technique on an agricultural-based MCGDM problem in pentagonal neutrosophic environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04768-1”
Reply: Thank you for your contributions. We would like to inform you that we have improved the literature review and included the articles indicated.
Comment 3: “Authors should mention the motivation and novelties of the work in separate section in the introduction. Why we need to study it? What are the research gaps? These are totally missing.”
Reply: we would like to inform you that we have reworked the introduction based on your suggestions. Thank you for your suggestions.
Comment 4: “Authors should add “flowchart” of the proposed method.”
Reply: The method is illustrated in general terms in figure 1.
Comment 5: “Authors should describe the need, limitations and impacts of the work briefly. It is missing.”
Reply: We commented on this in the introduction and conclusion.
Comment 6: “Authors did not show any comparative study here. It is totally missing.”
Reply: In this study we compared the results of the proposed method with the results of previous research. We have not made comparisons with other methods in this study, but we indicate this in future research. The proposed method does not generate just one final weight per criterion, but a set of weights, which implies emulating the main method in 't' iterations. In this way, we would have to program the other methods. This task is recommended for future work. In any case, the suggestion is important and will be considered in future work.
Comment 7: “Authors did not show any sensitivity analysis here. Add it.”
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, I have inserted subsection 3.1 and Table 15 and figure 8 in which I describe how we carried out the sensitivity analysis and the observations we made. I hope I have answered your question.
Comment 8: “Add “Discussion” section just before the conclusion section of the article and write the discussion of the examined results there, instead of in conclusion section.”
Reply: Please note that we have changed the discussion to reinforce the analysis of the results.
Comment 9: “Rewrite the conclusion portion, focus on the main points and add future scope portion in details.”
Reply: The conclusion was rewritten after the discussion.
Comment 10: “Need improvement in English writing. Several typos are there, authors should diminish it. Check the English grammar throughout the paper.”
Reply: we proofread English and grammar.
Reviewer 2 Report
Some comments and suggestions for revisions as follows:
1. Abstract. Please remove this sentence “In future research, the methodology 26 can be expanded to include methods such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE, WASPAS, among others.” Replace it with a more visionary statement about the future direction of your research.
2. Content recycling. Some content can be seen in the author’s published papers, such as Table 10 in this paper, is similar to that in Figure 1 in Basilio et al. (2021). doi.org/10.1108/JM2-05-2020-0122. Please ensure that proper citations and references are provided for any reused content.
3. The contribution of this paper seems to be the integration of common MCDA methods to address various issues. However, for publication in a scientific journal, consider highlighting the unique aspects or novel insights gained from this integration to emphasize its significance.
4. In Table 11, where all criteria objectives set maximization, provide different examples or cases to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. This will help illustrate its versatility and applicability in various scenarios.
5. If weights are not considered, what is the ranking result?
6. Some typos should be corrected. For example,
→Line 17, CRITIC, the abbreviation should be defined at first mention.
→In Section 2, Step 7- Generation of “t” Rranking with the PROMETHEE method.
→The title of Tables 12 and 13 should be in English.
Please check your manuscript carefully.
7. The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.
Best regards.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to express my gratitude for the comments made by the reviewers regarding this manuscript. They have certainly contributed to the scientific improvement of this article. In this way, we authors feel flattered by the professionalism with which they analyzed our proposal. Below I present the answers and justifications to the questions raised in the first round of review:
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: “Abstract. Please remove this sentence “In future research, the methodology 26 can be expanded to include methods such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE, WASPAS, among others.” Replace it with a more visionary statement about the future direction of your research.”
Reply: thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the abstract.
Comment 2: “Content recycling. Some content can be seen in the author’s published papers, such as Table 10 in this paper, is similar to that in Figure 1 in Basilio et al. (2021). doi.org/10.1108/JM2-05-2020-0122. Please ensure that proper citations and references are provided for any reused content.”
Reply: I thank you for your comment and inform you that the references have been inserted.
Comment 3: “The contribution of this paper seems to be the integration of common MCDA methods to address various issues. However, for publication in a scientific journal, consider highlighting the unique aspects or novel insights gained from this integration to emphasize its significance.”
Reply: We thank you for your contribution and have implemented it in the revision of the introduction.
Comment 4: “In Table 11, where all criteria objectives set maximization, provide different examples or cases to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. This will help illustrate its versatility and applicability in various scenarios.”
Reply: I understand the reviewer's comment, but we are comparing the result of the new method with the result reported in Basilio et. al [30]. In this way, we have preserved the same input data, because our main modification is in the modeling of the criteria weights. We do not deal with the type of criteria in this study. However, the algorithm developed allows simulation with different types of criteria. As we are working with real data, we have chosen not to address this issue in this paper. We will include it in future research. Once again, we thank you for your contribution.
Comment 5: “If weights are not considered, what is the ranking result?”
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. In table 14 we have included the analyzed result in which the same weight was used for all the criteria, in which case it is the same as using no weight for the criteria. In the PROMETHEE method we cannot use zero weights. Not assigning a weight is possible using ELECTRE IV. We discuss this detail in section 4.
Comment 6: “Some typos should be corrected. For example,
→Line 17, CRITIC, the abbreviation should be defined at first mention.
→In Section 2, Step 7- Generation of “t” Rranking with the PROMETHEE method.
→The title of Tables 12 and 13 should be in English.
Please check your manuscript carefully.”
Reply: I would like to inform you that we have revised the items mentioned. With regard to method acronyms, we have included a list of all the acronyms used in the text.
Comment 7: “The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar.”
Reply: we proofread English and grammar.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well-written and promising; yet, the following minor flaws are noted.
1. The literature review portion may be enhanced. It appears that the authors only did a brief retrospective. What issues should be addressed by the review? What is the present specific knowledge gap? What are the possible ramifications? The above questions must be addressed. Some recent literature on the topic area may be included and discussed.
2. The findings conclude by summarising the work produced without drawing any inferences from it. This Section needs to be greatly enhanced.
3. The article's conclusion lacks management consequences. The Section needs to be greatly enhanced.
The paper requires a thorough proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
Initially, we were flattered by your comments, and as far as possible we tried to implement them. The time was short, but we dedicated ourselves to meeting the deadline and taking your suggestions on board. Your contribution has been significant in improving this work. I will now explain the changes made. In the text, the changes are highlighted in red.
Comment 1: “The literature review portion may be enhanced. It appears that the authors only did a brief retrospective. What issues should be addressed by the review? What is the present specific knowledge gap? What are the possible ramifications? The above questions must be addressed. Some recent literature on the topic area may be included and discussed. ”
Reply: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We did intend to give an overview. However, based on this suggestion, we have improved the literature review. I hope we have met your expectations.
Comment 2: “The findings conclude by summarising the work produced without drawing any inferences. This Section needs to be greatly enhanced.”
Reply: In the results section, we presented the model's outputs. Section 4 contains the discussion. We have improved section 4 as well. Highlights are in red.
Comment 3: “The article's conclusion lacks management consequences. The Section needs to be greatly enhanced.”
Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion, and we've included the conclusion and improved the text. I hope I've met your expectations.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Authors should mention the motivation and novelties of the work in separate section in the introduction.
2. Need improvement in English writing. Several typos are there, authors should diminish it.Check the English grammar throughout the paper.
Need improvement in English writing. Several typos are there, authors should diminish it. Check the English grammar throughout the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you for your suggestions and your attention to improving our paper. We would like to inform you that we have implemented the suggestions made in this round of revision. The changes are highlighted in blue.
Answers to questions:
Comment 1: "Authors should mention the motivation and novelties of the work in separate section in the introduction."
Answer: In response to the reviewer's suggestion for improvement, we would like to inform you that it has been accepted and implemented in the introduction and is highlighted in blue in the text. We hope we have answered the question in accordance with the reviewer's expectations. Thank you for this indication.
Comment 2: "Need improvement in English writing. Several typos are there, authors should diminish it. Check the English grammar throughout the paper."
Answer: we proofread the English text. We corrected punctuation, some passive voice structures and confusing grammatical structures. Please note that we have used the Grammarly software as an aid. We hope we have improved your understanding of the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have addressed all of my concerns with the original manuscript. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I would like to thank you for your collaboration and suggestions in the first round of revisions, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of our article. Thank you very much.
First author
