Next Article in Journal
Cyanobacterial Biomass Produced in the Wastewater of the Dairy Industry and Its Evaluation in Anaerobic Co-Digestion with Cattle Manure for Enhanced Methane Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Multiple Criteria Decision-Making: A Novel Applications of Network DEA Model
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) for Biodiesel Synthesis Catalyzed by Radiation-Induced Kenaf Catalyst in Packed-Bed Reactor
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Novel Approach Integrating Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and Goal Programming for Chickpea Cultivar Selection under Stress Conditions

Processes 2020, 8(10), 1288; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8101288
by Ilknur Karacan 1,*, Ozlem Senvar 2, Ozlem Arslan 3, Yasemin Ekmekçi 4 and Serol Bulkan 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Processes 2020, 8(10), 1288; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8101288
Submission received: 20 September 2020 / Revised: 9 October 2020 / Accepted: 10 October 2020 / Published: 14 October 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The authors presented an interesting use of AHP method for thermal stress analysis. It is a well-known and frequently used method for multi-criteria analysis in decision-making processes. It is also used for benchmarking and optimization. The research methodology and the presentation of results do not raise any objections.Some minor comments are included in the manuscript. 

The chapter: Discussion and conclusions is very questionable. Requires a thorough reconstruction. There is no discussion with other literary sources in this chapter. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. A nomenclature should be added in order to make the formulation problem easier to the readers.
  2. An addition of an Acronyms section is highly recommended to facilitate the reader.
  3. What the paper might lack is a clearer statement of how the model differs from previous works and thus contributes to the literature. Which are the main contributions and the novel characteristics of the proposed methodology to the scientific community? Is there a totally novel methodological framework, or at least some enhancements to an existing one? The authors should clarify those aspects.
  4. Could you please elaborate more (mainly in the conclusions section) on the model limitations from a methodological viewpoint that need to be addressed by future works?
  5. Is the provided framework a generic one? Could it be utilized in other case studies without significant modifications?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for accepting my comments.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions that helped us to enhance the quality of our paper.

Back to TopTop