Competitiveness Evaluation of Express Delivery Enterprises Based on the Information Entropy and Gray Correlation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, I believe one of the biggest problems in this paper is on technical writing.  Specifically. I mean to use mathematical notations correctly.  For example, at line 195 on page 5, $X_i(j)={…}$ is wrong (i.e. you should not the parameter $j$ here).  Similarly, at line 200, $X_i(j)_{max}$ is incorrect (i.e. you should not put the subscript $i$ here).  Other examples happen between lines 204 to 207 as well as 213, 220 to 222.  Another problem is on the format and style.  See page 2 for example.  Line 45 has an extra period at the beginning.  The citation format of the author names is quite inconsistent at lines 73, 79, 84, and 93.  Same problem happens at the references.  Line 180 should be the title of subsection 2.2. 

English should be improved.  For example, there is no verb at line 133 and at line 343.  There are a lot of “long sentences” that are composed in the Chinese way (use commas to link several independent sentences) but this is incorrect in English, e. g. lines 139 to 146.  At line 185, “Because … because…”; at line 194, “, There…”, are other examples.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been poorly written and is difficult to understand.

The authors use terms that may not be familiar outside of China without explaining their meaning, such as Double 11, Double 12, and Tongda Department.

The article also contains abbreviations without explaining their meaning, such as PDCA and AHP.

Line 180 of the article is completely unintelligible.

From subsection 2.2.1 onwards, the text is mixed with mathematical symbols and equations, making it completely incomprehensible.

The article, in its current form, is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the subject of the paper is interesting there is a very large number of syntax/grammar errors that decrease the readability of the paper. Because of this there are various parts in the paper that it is difficult to understand. Based on the above the reviewer cannot recommend this paper for publication.

See above for the reviewer's comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article, after the corrections, is much more readable. Please pay attention to line 207, the equation in line 266 in denominator add parentheses around index i, and also pay attention on line 350.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved their paper which can now be accepted for publication.