Evaluation of Agricultural Machinery Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The article focuses only on the problem of choosing a certain tractor by a farmer, but the review of the literature on the analysis of tractor characteristics and technical solutions used in them shows that evaluating tractors can also be useful for manufacturers in order to identify competitive advantages and assess the feasibility of using various developments in them. It is advisable to show in the article the possibility of using multi-criteria evaluation methods to solve such problems facing manufacturing firms.

2. The article states that when choosing a tractor using a multi-criteria evaluation method, the criteria for evaluating alternative options are determined, in determining which subjective and objective determination of the weights of the criteria can be used. In the article, the authors choose an objective method for determining the weight of criteria, in which there is no influence of the opinions of decision makers. This approach is justified when conducting theoretical research, but in the conditions of real production there are always certain decision-makers who may prefer a certain evaluation criterion, and in this case the weight of this criterion should be higher than the rest. It is advisable, perhaps during further research, to use or develop a methodology that allows, along with MCDA, to take into account the subjective opinion of decision makers, which will expand the possibilities of practical application of these methods.

3. As one of the criteria for evaluating tractors, the authors selected the cubic capacity of the engine. The reasons for this choice are not entirely clear, since the cubic volume of the engine does not directly affect the performance indicators of the engine and the tractor itself that are most interesting to the farmer.

4. The weight of the tractor is related to cost indicators, but the weight of the tractor mainly affects its traction characteristics, and, consequently, the performance of the completed unit, which is of greater importance for the farmer. The influence of the weight of the tractor on its cost is reflected by the manufacturer in the price of the tractor. It is advisable to adjust.

5. The first sentence in the conclusion that tractors are mainly used for agricultural mechanization is a well-known fact and does not relate to the main results of the study. It is advisable to remove it.

6. In conclusion, it is advisable to indicate which method is preferable to use in practice for multi-criteria evaluation of tractors, taking into account the complexity of calculations and the greatest discrepancy between the results obtained.

Author Response

1. The article focuses only on the problem of choosing a certain tractor by a farmer, but the review of the literature on the analysis of tractor characteristics and technical solutions used in them shows that evaluating tractors can also be useful for manufacturers in order to identify competitive advantages and assess the feasibility of using various developments in them. It is advisable to show in the article the possibility of using multi-criteria evaluation methods to solve such problems facing manufacturing firms.

- 10 papers have been added that deal with the problem of multi-criteria decision-making in agricultural production, using the example of agricultural mechanization.

2. The article states that when choosing a tractor using a multi-criteria evaluation method, the criteria for evaluating alternative options are determined, in determining which subjective and objective determination of the weights of the criteria can be used. In the article, the authors choose an objective method for determining the weight of criteria, in which there is no influence of the opinions of decision makers. This approach is justified when conducting theoretical research, but in the conditions of real production there are always certain decision-makers who may prefer a certain evaluation criterion, and in this case the weight of this criterion should be higher than the rest. It is advisable, perhaps during further research, to use or develop a methodology that allows, along with MCDA, to take into account the subjective opinion of decision makers, which will expand the possibilities of practical application of these methods.

- In conclusion, guidelines are given for the use also subjective methods in multi-criteria decision-making in agriculture.

3. As one of the criteria for evaluating tractors, the authors selected the cubic capacity of the engine. The reasons for this choice are not entirely clear, since the cubic volume of the engine does not directly affect the performance indicators of the engine and the tractor itself that are most interesting to the farmer.

- The text emphasizes that this criterion does not affect the performance of the tractor.

4. The weight of the tractor is related to cost indicators, but the weight of the tractor mainly affects its traction characteristics, and, consequently, the performance of the completed unit, which is of greater importance for the farmer. The influence of the weight of the tractor on its cost is reflected by the manufacturer in the price of the tractor. It is advisable to adjust.

- This criterion was corrected into a benefit criterion and all analyzes were performed again.

5. The first sentence in the conclusion that tractors are mainly used for agricultural mechanization is a well-known fact and does not relate to the main results of the study. It is advisable to remove it.

- The first sentence was deleted from the paper.

6. In conclusion, it is advisable to indicate which method is preferable to use in practice for multi-criteria evaluation of tractors, taking into account the complexity of calculations and the greatest discrepancy between the results obtained.

- In the conclusion, a recommendation is given which method should be used in future research and which method should not be used independently.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The study fits well with the scope of the journal. It is an original research article. I am assuming it will make contributions to the field of agricultural machinery.

Abstract:

Covers the study in essence and summarizes the purpose, methods, and major findings.

Introduction, review of related literature

The study is well organized and used proper literature.

Research methodology and methods

Methods are clearly defined. Figure 1 was a good idea to present the methods to be used to achieve the objectives of the study.

I checked the methods (CRITIC Method, Entropy method, Standard deviation method, the MEREC Method, the modified standard deviation method, and the CRADIS method) for determining the weights of the criteria which applied in this study, and found no major mistakes. The methods were well used for achieving the objectives of this study.

Results and discussion

I carefully checked the tables along with the text and found it quite consistent and reasonable.

Overall, I would say that this is a successful study and can be published with  revisions.

The authors should double check with the tables and language of the paper.

Some specific comments:

Page 1, line 17, …a one of the…, …one of the….

- "a" has been deleted

Page 2, line 95, the paper actually includes five section. Section 1 as the “introduction”

should also be included here.

- Corrected

Page 6, line 208, delete the full stop (.) in the beginning of the paragraph.

- The full stop has been deleted

Pages 13-14, No information is given for “Data Availability Statement”, and “Acknowledgments”

- Text for this information has been inserted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, the topic of applying different multi criteria analysis to the evaluation of tractor is new and of interest. The paper is very well organized and written.

There's only a very important question. The work is decidedly investigative in the application of these methods but, personally, I do not know if it is possible to declare the following sentences reporting the name of the manufacturers:

Based on the results obtained... the best... is A1 - FENDT 820 VARIO,..., while the worst-ranked A2 - 7250 TTV Agrotron.

and

The obtained results showed that the best tractor is FENDT 820 VARIO (A1) ... The worst-ranked tractor of the used tractors is the 7250 TTV Agrotron (A2). ... However, even these weights have confirmed that the FENDT 820 VARIO tractor is the best ranked.

Table 3. Initial decision matrix

FENDT 820 VARIO (A1)

7250 TTV Agrotron (A2)

Axion 800 (A3)

X8.660 (A4)

MF7718 S (A5)

T7.230 New Holland (A6)

The six tractors are the samples of the research and are correctly and completely defined in Table 3. I retain that the labels A1, A2, ..., A6 are enough to indicate the six samples.

My suggestion is to delete completely the names of the six tractors from table 3 and from all the paper. Please check with the Editor and in terms of Policy of the Journal.

Moreover other minor remarks are reported:

95 In addition to the introduction, the paper is divided into four selections. In section 2, 

Do you mean four sections? Please check

121 Engine, Power drive, Povew, Rated engine speed, Weight and No. of gears.

Please check Povew?, not clear

Table 1 presents some papers in the last five years in which the 141 methods to be used in this paper were applied. Objective methods for determining the 142 weight of criteria have been used in various fields of agriculture. Table 1 presents some 143 papers in the last five years in which the methods used in this study were applied.

There’s a repetition, please check.

Author Response

Dear Authors, the topic of applying different multi criteria analysis to the evaluation of tractor is new and of interest. The paper is very well organized and written.

There's only a very important question. The work is decidedly investigative in the application of these methods but, personally, I do not know if it is possible to declare the following sentences reporting the name of the manufacturers:

Based on the results obtained... the best... is A1 - FENDT 820 VARIO,..., while the worst-ranked A2 - 7250 TTV Agrotron.

and

The obtained results showed that the best tractor is FENDT 820 VARIO (A1) ... The worst-ranked tractor of the used tractors is the 7250 TTV Agrotron (A2). ... However, even these weights have confirmed that the FENDT 820 VARIO tractor is the best ranked.

Table 3. Initial decision matrix

FENDT 820 VARIO (A1)

7250 TTV Agrotron (A2)

Axion 800 (A3)

X8.660 (A4)

MF7718 S (A5)

T7.230 New Holland (A6)

The six tractors are the samples of the research and are correctly and completely defined in Table 3. I retain that the labels A1, A2, ..., A6 are enough to indicate the six samples.

My suggestion is to delete completely the names of the six tractors from table 3 and from all the paper. Please check with the Editor and in terms of Policy of the Journal.

- These suggestions were taken into account and an explanation was given as to why the names of the tractors are not mentioned.

Moreover other minor remarks are reported:

95 In addition to the introduction, the paper is divided into four selections. In section 2,

- This has been corrected. Another reviewer suggested the same.

Do you mean four sections? Please check

121 Engine, Power drive, Povew, Rated engine speed, Weight and No. of gears.

Please check Povew?, not clear

Corrected, it now says Power.

Table 1 presents some papers in the last five years in which the 141 methods to be used in this paper were applied. Objective methods for determining the 142 weight of criteria have been used in various fields of agriculture. Table 1 presents some 143 papers in the last five years in which the methods used in this study were applied.

There’s a repetition, please check.

- A repeating sentence has been deleted.