Business Intelligence in Airline Passenger Satisfaction Study—A Fuzzy-Genetic Approach with Optimized Interpretability-Accuracy Trade-Off
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an interesting analysis with relevance and impact on airline passenger satisfaction. However, the paper in order to be published must consider the following points to increase its impact on the research community:
1) Include the link of the database as a reference and not as a webpage link
2) Include the main findings and conclusions after comparison at the end of the abstract
3) Explain in the abstract which methods are compared and which is the main difference between the developed method and the alternative one
4) Explain how the data from the used database was gathered and how it could influence the research performed
5) Describe how the methods (MOEOAs, the generalization of the well-known Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm and SPEA2 itself) are selected and what are the similarities and differences between them
6) Describe with a figure or similar how the comparison is designed and which data input, which data processing techniques are used, which output results are obtained and based on which criteria, the results are going to be analyzed
7) The selection of values and percantages in the data processing should be explained and the criteria defined as for example in the selection of 10% of the whole data set as learning data and 90% for testing purposes
8) In chapter 3 please include specific mentions to describe which methods are from literature and which novelties are added based on the research performed.
9) For better describing the findings a chapter or sub-chapter in chapter 4 is recommended to be added in order to explain and illustrate how the analyzed attributes affect airline passenger satisfaction and based on which criteria are those more or less important or relevant in which situations or conditions.
10) Extend the current conclusion section by including the critical reflection on which attributes would you add to the used database; Moreover, conclusions could be broken down into theoretical, empirical, managerial and future research; In the managerial section a conclusion should be added on how the research can be used for decision-making support
Author Response
Please see the attached file "Gorzalczany_Rudz_Piek_Cover letter_Response to reviewers comments.pdf", which contains:
1. Cover letter.
2. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
3. Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
4. Special copy of our revised paper with clearly highlighted (using red font) revisions. A graphical abstract is included as well.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, this paper presents an important aspect of ... that interesting and would attract reader in this field. The data and the finding are convincing but there are spaces for improvement before ready for publication.
Here are my comments:
- The method and the finding should be elaborated briefly in the abstract.
- The main goal and contribution of this paper is the application of knowledge-discovery technique (fuzzy rule-based classification systems) characterized by genetically optimized interpretability-accuracy trade-off to decision support related to airline passenger satisfaction problems. However, what kind of airline passenger satisfaction problems and what supports can be obtained from this technique are not well elaborated.
- The findings of this paper especially what knowledge can be revealed, with respect to the amount of data and techniques presented in this paper, are not properly elaborated and discussed so that the stated contribution is not clearly proved.
Author Response
Please see the attached file "Gorzalczany_Rudz_Piek_Cover letter_Response to reviewers comments.pdf", which contains:
1. Cover letter.
2. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
3. Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
4. Special copy of our revised paper with clearly highlighted (using red font) revisions. A graphical abstract is included as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors:
Thank you for the careful review of the paper based on the comments.
I suggest to accept the paper after some minor changes:
- Comment 4: please introduce a description on how the data collection and the statistics related could influence the results
- Comment 5: a table or figure can provide a better overview over the description of the similarities and differences of SPEA2 and SPEA3
- Comment 6:
- Include short and precise explanations for the figures in the paper
- Try to improve the readibility and clearness of the figures
- Comment 7: assess critically the decisions made in the data treatment, are they the optimal ones? could they improve?
- Comment 9: it refers more to the description of findings based on the results and analysis presented in the paper rather than citing authors supporting the findings. As a result, it is recommended to change or/and extend the focus of this part
Best regards
Sergio
Author Response
Please see the attached file "Gorzalczany_Rudz_Piek_Cover letter_Response to reviewers comments_Round 2.pdf", which contains:
1. Cover letter.
2. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round 2)
3. Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2)
4. Special copy of our revised paper with clearly highlighted (using red font) revisions. A graphical abstract is included as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of the issues raised by the reviewers, but I suggest the following improvements before ready for publications.
- The way on writing your abstract is not fully satisfied, I believe you can make it better.
- Table 8, the comparison of two approach, has different measure of those two results therefore it is difficult to judge which one is better. I suggest to use the same measure whether ACC(tst) or Importance for better understanding.
- Please clarify whether the Figure 5 and 6 are part of the results or the methodology. If these are part of the method, I suggest to move it into methodology section.
- It will be better if you provide the data sets in the supplementary material along with the paper to prevent inaccessibility due to removal from third party website.
- Figure should be written as full word (not Fig.) in the cross reference of your text.
Author Response
Please see the attached file "Gorzalczany_Rudz_Piek_Cover letter_Response to reviewers comments_Round 2.pdf", which contains:
1. Cover letter.
2. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round 2)
3. Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2)
4. Special copy of our revised paper with clearly highlighted (using red font) revisions. A graphical abstract is included as well.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
