Strengthening Criteria Independence through Optimization of Alternative Value Ratio Comparisons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the article " Strengthening Criteria Independence Through Optimisation of Alternative Value Ratio Comparisons", a new optimisation model for strengthening criteria independence and consensus in group decision making is presented as an extension of the authors' earlier work.

The concept that certain types of information presentation can significantly reduce preference bias and strengthen criteria independence from requirements by anchoring them across alternatives is very interesting, but the proposed method needs to be explained more clearly:

Line 125: The definition of the operator N(S) is not clear.

Line 128: The definition of qmx is not clear. Also is stated that "For simplicity of notation and without loss of generality, we assume that ?=1 is used in the denominator of each ???." but in Figure 3 i is 1,2 and 3.

In Figure 4, the labels qx and the ratio index x are used, which are not clearly defined before.

Line 140: An error message is displayed.

It appears that the right side of constrais (5) is negative, but the left side is positive. This needs to be clearly explained and written.

The definition of the set of variables Xx is not clear as line 128 states that x=2,3 but in the next section when the constraints are defined x is not just 2 and 3.

The proposed discussion and interpretation of the results obtained is also poor. I strongly recommend the authors to expand it and clearly highlight the obtained results and improvements compared to other mathematical models. The summary sections should be changed into a short conclusion section.

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed review!  Please see my response attached.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study attempts to r expands that research and proposes a new optimization model for strengthening criteria independence and consensus in group decision making. Overall, the paper is well written and well structured, therefore it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. Generally well written but requires some editing and revision.

 

At first, Abstract would be updated to implant research findings and implications.

 

page 5 Line 140 required checking Error! Reference source not found.

 

Research design, data collection process and data analysis method are appropriate. Is there any justification of data collection period. Please explain why the author captured the data from 2004 to 2015.

 

Yes. The processes for data analysis are appropriate and the results of it are clearly described. However, this paper just described the results of data analysis. To improve the quality of this study, author(s) need to extract more clear implications in both theoretical and practical perspectives as a discussion of the results. Additional explanations about the figures are required (e.g. figure 7 to 14)

 

The quality of communication is appropriate. Generally, well written but requires some editing and revision.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the detailed review!  Please see my response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors significantly improved the paper and considered all suggested revisions. The revised form of the article can be accepted.