An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Hybrid Methodology to Analyze Agricultural Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Result and discussion is too short and should be separated.

The authors should provide both academic implication and practical implication.

The authors should discuss the alignment of this study's results with previous study findings.

 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers' Comments

 

Ms. Ref. No.: Sus-1616421

 

Title of Paper:

 

An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM hybrid Methodology to Analyze

Agricultural Production

 

Thanks for your helpful observations. The actual comments of the reviewer are in italicized font and our answers are in Red font. Corrections have been made in the text.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper has been revised entirely based on your valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• The significance of the study must be improved. The introduction part did not provide any supportive reason why the authors must apply the proposed method to solve the problems.
• What are the precise contributions of this study? Is it a novel integration of different MCDM methods or a new area of methods applied or both of them? Please clearly identify the contribution in the introduction section as well as show the gaps of past works in the literature review section.
• The literature review should more highlight the current and past situations of related works. This aims to present the existing gaps found in past studies. In this paper, it aims to presents details of past works without the conclusion of findings and gaps or improvement opportunities.
• If the contribution of work relies on the development of integrated MCDM methods, many past works are still neglected such as
  
  • A Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on ANP and TOPSIS for Facility Layout Selection, Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 2018, 35(6), pp. 1027-1037
  • Use of an analytic network process and monte carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007

and similarly, if the contribution of work relies on the application of MCDM method and sustainable issue, several past works are also still neglected such as

• • Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers, Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10174.
  • Framework for benchmarking logistics performance using fuzzy AHP, International Journal of Business Performance Supply Chain Model. 2009, 1, 82–98.
  • Improving the intellectual capital management approach using the hybrid decision method, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 670 – 691.
  • Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method”, The
    International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 114-136.
• The overall quality of paper must be improved such as the formats, equations, etc. When presenting the equations, the parameters must be described.
• Please see an example of papers from this journal. For example, the paper entitled "Prioritizing the Solutions to Reverse Logistics Barriers for the E-Commerce Industry in Pakistan Based on a Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach" published in Sustainability. Please see the quality of the abovementioned paper and try to improve several points of your paper such as formats, tables, figures, equations, and references. 
• Please check the hierarchy model of this work. Normally, the AHP model is not constructed like this.
• The selection of criteria must be clearly identified, and the selection process should be reliable too. No. of criteria is very small, and this made the model be very simple. Therefore, authors should provide proper reasons with the development of AHP model (criteria and alternatives).
• Authors mainly present the details of F-AHP and F-TOPSIS and their calculations and obtained results. The authors should explain and discuss more on the results of the case study. Comparing results with other related works, and discussing the similarities and differences. Trying to highlight the contributions of your work compared to other past related studies.
• Limitations and 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers' Comments

 

Ms. Ref. No.: Sus-1616421

 

Title of Paper:

 

An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM hybrid Methodology to Analyze

Agricultural Production

 

Thanks for your helpful observations. The actual comments of the reviewer are in italicized font and our answers are in in Red font. Corrections have been made in the text.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper has been revised entirely based on your valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted paper matches the scope of he journal and the considered topic would be of interest to the research community. However, it needs some substantial improvements to be considered for publication in Sustainability. I suggest the following improvements:

- In the introduction section, the authors should better highlight the objectives of their work and to what extent it contributes to close the gap to the existing literature and/or practice. The innovative value of the contribution should be particularly highlighted.

- In the introduction section, the authors should provide more thorough information about the existing MCDM models and emphasize their advantages andweaknesses.

- Why was the AHP method used to determine the criteria weights? Why not BWM, FUCOM or Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) methods? These methods should also be briefly addressed. 

- Similarly, why was the TOPSIS method used? Why not MARCOS, MABAC, MAIRCA or VIKOR? These methods may also be briefly discussed.

- A separate literature review section would be welcome. More recent references, published in the previous two-three years should be included. Some recent references with application of AHP are missing. For example, Bakır, M., & Atalık, Özlem. (2021). Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS Approach for the Evaluation of E-Service Quality in the Airline Industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104127b; Karamaşa, Çağlar, Demir, E., Memiş, S., & Korucuk, S. (2021). Weighting the factors affectıng logıstıcs outsourcıng. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104019k; Alosta, A., Elmansuri, O., & Badi, I. (2021). Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach. Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 2(1), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.31181/rme200102135a; Karamaşa, Ç., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., Kookhdan, A., Mishra, A., & Ertürk, M. (2021). An extended single-valued neutrosophic AHP and MULTIMOORA method to evaluate the optimal training aircraft for flight training organizations. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 555-578.; Osintsev, N., Rakhmangulov, A., & Baginova, V. (2021). Evaluation of logistic flows in green supply chains based on the combined DEMATEL-ANP method. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 473-498.

- Would it be possible to give a step-by-step algorithm for the proposed methodology in order to explain it better. 

- Explain the data used in the case study in more details, the data for the testing, the criterion for the accuracy.

- Validation section is missing making it difficult to judge about the achieved results. Also a discussion would be more then welcome, in which a comparison with other results would be addressed and analyzed. 

- The conclusion section is a bit too sparse. The authors should emphasize the impact and insights of the research and provide several solid future research directions. Also, limitations of the model should be mentioned. 

Author Response

Answer to Reviewers' Comments

 

Ms. Ref. No.: Sus-1616421

 

Title of Paper:

 

An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM hybrid Methodology to Analyze

Agricultural Production

 

Thanks for your helpful observations. The actual comments of the reviewer are in italicized font and our answers are in in Red font. Corrections have been made in the text.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper has been revised entirely based on your valuable comments. Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The overall structures of the manuscript have been improved. English language proofreading probably helps enhancing the perfection of the paper.

Good luck for your work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer :

 

We are very grateful for your comments on the manuscript. The comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. According to your suggestions, we modify the relevant part of the manuscript. Your comments were a swered as follows.

 

Reviewer # 1

 

Thank the reviewer for these precious comments and suggestions. This is the main weakness of this paper. The manuscript has been edited by a native speaker.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment# 1: The overall structures of the manuscript have been improved. English language proofreading probably helps enhance the perfection of the paper.

 

Response 1:

Thanks for your comment. Paper reviewed by a native English speaker, We have checked the linguistic indices errors in our paper carefully and rewritten them in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my comments have been responded properly. However, there are issues that must be improved before accepting for publication. Please see the suggestions below.

• Typos must be corrected. For example, in the abstract, "n important goal of the current research is to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluating technologies and ranking their appropriateness." >>> "An important goal". Please check the whole paper carefully.
• The literature review section should better highlight the gaps of past works instead of details of past related studies.
• To emphasize the significance of MCDM method related to the uncertainty, some related papers must be more cited such as
  
  • Uncertainty analysis in the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in Australian strategic environmental decisions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(8):1097-1124
  • Use of an analytic network process and monte carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007
• Carefully check formats for all parts such as fonts of figures are different from paragraphs, bold fonts in general sentences (e.g. page 4), lines are disconnected between alternatives and criteria C3 (Figure 2), etc.

Author Response

Reviewer # 2

 

Thank the reviewer for these precious comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been edited by a native speaker. “Revision is highlighted by the red color font”

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment# 1:  Most of my comments have been responded to properly. However, there are issues that must be improved before accepting for publication. Please see the suggestions below.

• Typos must be corrected. For example, in the abstract, "n important goal of the current research is to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluating technologies and ranking their appropriateness." >>> "An important goal". Please check the whole paper carefully.
• The literature review section should better highlight the gaps of past works instead of details of past related studies.
• To emphasize the significance of the MCDM method related to the uncertainty, some related papers must be more cited such as
  
  
• Uncertainty analysis in the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in Australian strategic environmental decisions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(8):1097-1124
• Use of an analytic network process and monte carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007
• Carefully check formats for all parts such as fonts of figures are different from paragraphs, bold fonts in general sentences (e.g. page 4), lines are disconnected between alternatives and criteria C3 (Figure 2), etc

Response 1:

 

Thanks for your comment.

An important objective of the current research is to build a complete framework for evaluating and grading technologies' suitability. A real-world case study is used to demonstrate the suggested paradigm's validity.

 

 

Everyday decision-making is important. While one-on-one comparisons seem to work well in ordinary life, they do not work well in business. Problems in company management are more complex than in personal life since most business scenarios include multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). To tackle these issues, multi-criteria decision procedures should be properly chosen [7].

 

MCDM techniques employ structured procedures and algorithms to determine the optimal response to a diverse set of facts, values, and stakeholder views. These tactics, in general, seek to eliminate ambiguity in decision-making. Thus, uncertainty has been considered in relation to MCDM and its numerous applications. A comprehensive examination of the multiple sources of uncertainty in environmental choices impacting MCDM outcomes is uncommon [10].

 

Thanks for your comment. Appropriate articles were added, also edits made

 

• Uncertainty analysis in the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in Australian strategic environmental decisions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(8):1097-1124
• Use of an analytic network process and monte Carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007

 

 

Carefully checked:

formats for all parts such as fonts of figures are different from paragraphs, bold fonts in general sentences (e.g. page 4), lines are disconnected between alternatives and criteria C3 (Figure 2), etc

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have suitably addressed the comments from the previous review round.

Author Response

Reviewer # 3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment# 1

The authors have suitably addressed the comments from the previous review round.

 

Response 1:

Paper reviewed by a native English speaker, We have checked the linguistic indices errors in our paper carefully and rewritten them in the revised manuscript.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper has been revised entirely based on your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

All of my raised comments have been improved. Thank you for your responses.