Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The corrections made and comments are provided in the attached document.

Yours sincerely,

Nikolaj Goranin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

    This article aims to solve the problem of ensuring the sustainable development of EU countries in terms of identifying critical information infrastructures. Integrated multi-criteria decision-making technique based on the fuzzy WASPAS and AHP methods is used to identify essential information infrastructures, which are related to a new type of potential threats to national security. The paper proposes a model to identify critical information infrastructures taking into account the sustainable development of countries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

In the name of all authors I would like first of all to express our gratitude for dedicating your valuable time for reviewing our manuscript and providing article evaluation.

 

Thank you very much once again.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Nikolaj Goranin

Reviewer 3 Report

I found the article very interesting. The paper proposes a  model to identify critical information infrastructures taking into account the sustainable  development of countries.

The content of the article and the review of literature (references) demonstrates that it has not been published elsewhere.

The title accurately describes the content.

The abstract is written properly and it contains general information, encouraging the reader to read the article. 

Elements of the manuscript relate logically to the study. The figures and tables are necessary to the understanding of the conclusions, and they should not be omitted. All mathematical symbols are properly defined. The results are technically correct, relating to the existing knowledge on the topic.

A reviewer suggestion:

1.    The reviewer suggests that the WASPSA abbreviation should be explained at the beginning - in the first part of the article (eg line 75). The explanation can be found in the article but in subsection 2.5 (line 483-482).

2.    I suggest to change the title of section 2. Materials and Methods. My suggestion is: “Methodology of research and applied methods”  but I am open for Authors’ new variant. I'm not convinced about the “materials” word.

3.    The papers below can be considered by Authors to complete the newest references (according using MCDM in science, engineering and management  – lines: 77-83 of the paper):

-          Leśniak, A., Kubek, D., Plebankiewicz, E., Zima, K., & Belniak, S. (2018). Fuzzy AHP Application for Supporting Contractors’ Bidding Decision. Symmetry, 10(11), 642. doi:10.3390/sym10110642

-      Guarini, M. R., Battisti, F., & Chiovitti, A. (2018). A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes. Sustainability, 10(2), 507, doi.org/10.3390/su10020507

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The corrections made and comments are provided in the attached document.

Yours sincerely,

Nikolaj Goranin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf