Probabilistic Hesitant Fuzzy Decision-Theoretic Rough Set Model and Its Application in Supervision of Shared Parking
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Please avoid the abbreviation (DTRS) in the title.
- Also, please use the abbreviations (e.g., CPC) once being introduced.
- As far as I have seen, only one reference in the introduction part as well as updated references are ignored. So, please develop the introduction part of the paper to include 10 to 15 latest references (2015 to 2023) from well-known journals in the field and relevant extracts from them.
- The researcher(s) should pay attention to the research gap that is still not sufficient. Therefore, please add more arguments related to the research gap in the introduction.
- The contribution of the paper needs to be clearly mentioned.
- It is necessary to mention the research discussion.
-Along the same lines, it is necessary to mention the research limitations and recommendations in a separate section.
-Please try to restructure the conclusion. The current writing is not well structured.
I hope that my comments can help you to improve your manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting. The authors have attempted to develop a methodological approach for decision making for parking, specifically shared parking in congested cities. While the effort for developing a methodological approach is appreciated, the paper has major flaws. The authors may look into the following to improve the paper.
I am not sure if the paper is suitable to this journal and the special issue. It is more suitable to journals related to mathematics.
The authors have taken the context of parking challenges in cities but very poorly formulated the problem. The arguments weaver from general problems to parking problems in cities of China without any focus. Furthermore, the actual decision-making problem or research problem is not articulated. The authors have not clarified the concept of private parking and shared parking as well as subsidies in parking. Such issues may be context specific, so in order to develop decision making methods, the concept and the interlinkage between different aspects should be clearly articulated. In other words, the problem formulation interalia what problem the authors are trying to solve is not clear from the problem formulation.
In the related works the authors have not discussed the various methodological approaches currently available to solve such problems and why the proposed method is essential and relevant.
More importantly, in the whole methodological approach the authors focused the mathematical and conceptual aspects of the Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy DTRS model, however, did not contextualize it to the parking problems. Also, the authors seemed to have assumed many things (without mentioning them) without which it is very difficult to understand how the method was used. Various aspects such as the principle behind the method and its applicability for parking studies, the assumptions made, the validity of the models and so on are missing.
Furthermore, the principles of parking for example demand and supply aspects of parking are totally missing. It is not sure how the supply and demand aspects of parking on a road or an area was taken care off in the model development. Similar, how the subsides work and how subsidies are linked to allotment of parking (shared parking) are not clear,
Another problem is that the authors have assumed data (if I am not wrong) to apply the developed model to examine the parking problem. While an example can be made based on assumed data, no realistic conclusions may be made from such assumptions. The conclusions cannot also be validated based on the assumed data. In otherwards, no details about what data was used and how it was collected is found.
Similarly, although some calculations were shown related to the results mentioned in Tables 4-14, no systematic stepwise process and algorithm used (if used) have been provided to make the reader understand the process clearly. Further, no discussion on the findings were made. Also, there is no evidence that could enable the assessing the performance of method/model.
So, the critical findings and conclusions thereof look abstract.
The structure of the paper and the language used should be improved significantly.
Overall, although I appreciate the authors effort to develop a model, it needs significant work in terms of conceptualization, developing systematic stepwise process, validation, discussion of the results, re-articulation and presentation before being become suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Please check the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript thoroughly and addressing many of my concerns. The manuscript has been improved a lot. Good job. I reserve some minor concerns as below:
Limitations recommendations have to be improved. In particular, I suggest you mention the research limitations and recommendations in a separate section. Also, please move the conclusions part to the end of the paper (after the discussion part)
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Your comments optimized the structure of the manuscript. The reply is listed below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the paper and addressed the concerns reasonably. However, two important aspects need to be considered and improved.
The authors have assumed the data and no proper logical explanation is given. As mentioned previously it will be difficult to draw critical conclusions from such data. The authors must explain the premises of assumption and reasons for suitability of such data.
The discussion section is very shallow. The finding should be discussed in reference to extant literature. Further it should be located before the conclusion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
I was greatly inspired by your comments, which optimized the structure of the manuscript. The reply is listed below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors revised the paper and all comments have been done.
The manuscript is ready for publishing in the Sustainability Journal.
Author Response
Eng
Dear Reviewers:
Your comments optimized the structure of the manuscript. The reply is listed below.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors revised the paper and all comments have been done.
The manuscript is ready for publishing in the Sustainability Journal.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
I was greatly inspired by your comments, which optimized the structure of the manuscript. The reply is listed below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
