Next Article in Journal
Culture’s Influence on the Design and Delivery of the Marketing Mix Elements in Tourism and Hospitality
Previous Article in Journal
Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/su132111626
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review

Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11626; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111626
by Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza 1,2,3,*, Erivelton Antonio dos Santos 4,5, Nei Yoshihiro Soma 1,2,6 and Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva 4,7
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11626; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111626
Submission received: 6 September 2021 / Revised: 25 September 2021 / Accepted: 1 October 2021 / Published: 21 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Industrial Engineering and Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper belongs to an interesting line of research. I put below some suggestions for potential improvements.

 

  1. This paper was need to specify the innovation in the manuscript. I suggest rebuild and extend introduction section. The Authors’ approach and practical case study must be positioned in the light of other up to date studies.
  2. The methods stated very clearly.
  3. Please explain the summarization of your research findings more clearly.
  4. The conclusions are a bit limiting. I suggest the authors to expand the conclusions or suggestions a bit.
  5. Please check some mistakes Line 115, 122 and 126 ==> “In Section ??”

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I had the chance to study this review article and it is quite interesting. However, I have few concerns before accepting it.

  1. It's a review article but above the title, they mentioned that it's an article. Please correct it.
  2. Many typos in abbreviations. See MCDM, it already defined in the abstract, yet the author used full form in line 82. Please correct it.
  3. What is PRISMA in line 132? Please explain? the authors explained it few words later.
  4. Make corrections in line 126.
  5. Line 140, check the sentence structure.
  6. Line 167, 168. Check the sentence structure.
  7. The authors raised some questions at the start of the paper? Did they succeed in finding the answers? if yes, they should discuss in the conclusion.
  8. The authors took papes only from two sources, does it points towards any weakness?
  9. There are many generalizations of fuzzy sets, will including them in the study have an impact or not? Please discuss in conclusion.
  10. The similarity is 27% excluding references. Please reduce it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find attached the Review Report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well revised and should be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author(s),

The revised version of the manuscript entitled “MCDM based R&D project selection: A systematic literature review” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1391242) improved in a suitable manner. The author(s) considered most of the suggested changes as expressed throughout the first review round. As well, the author(s) provided appropriate replies for each of the concern. Therefore, the paper deserves to be published in current form.

Back to TopTop