The Road to Sustainable Logistics: Using the Fuzzy Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization Model to Build Photovoltaic Stations in Taiwan’s Logistics Centers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this relevant paper. Current theme aligned with sustainable issues. Below are some suggestions for possible improvements that I recommend incorporating into the text.

The introduction and theoretical framework sections need better attention in their development. In the introduction, there is a need to better justify the topic, make it clear what the research gap is, demonstrate why this study is important compared to others already published in the area. I suggest elaborating a guiding research question and making it clear directly what the purpose of the study is. The theoretical framework section needs to consider more current references in the area. Generate critical analyzes between the references that allow the reader to understand and consolidate the understanding of the importance of this study compared to those already published. Make this section more fluid, I found it confusing and truncated. Improve connections between paragraphs.

The method section is the strong point of the article.

The results are well presented, but the discussions need to be better debated. Make it clear what contributions the results make to theory and practice in this context. Conduct an analysis of the results from an environmental, economic and social point of view (I believe it will enhance the paper considering the scope of the journal).

In the conclusions, insert what were the limitations of the research and how such limitations were circumvented. In addition, objectively leave at the end at least three proposals for future studies based on the findings of this one.

Good luck!

Author Response

Answer for Report 1.

Thanks for reading this paper.

1. In the newly rewritten paper, the contextual content has been made coherent, and more explanations have been added to allow readers to feel continuity with the content of the text.
2. The literature has discussed other scholars' papers that have been researched and analyzed. It also explains related papers on solar photovoltaic stations and fuzzy multi-objective decision-making [18]. This study derived the value of this article through the theoretical framework and writing purpose. Furthermore, it also reorganized the application of the theoretical framework of this article.
3. It has been explained in the newly rewritten paper that the model established by this research method can achieve short-term goals (time, cost, quality). The ESG's long-term goal is to produce green energy. This model can quickly build solar photovoltaic power stations based on quality standards and offer clean energy that has a long-term protective effect on the environment.
4. Thanks to the reviewer's suggestions, which have strengthened the relationship between ESG and the model, and explained the model method and contribution to ESG in the conclusion.

The above description is for Report 1, and the paper's content is rewritten according to the suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for the photovoltaic power station at Taiwan Logistics Center. The objectives considered for optimization in this research are: Minimizing completion time, minimizing the total cost, and maximizing project quality score. In this research, a multi-objective nonlinear programming model is established for compression project scheduling.

1- In what software were the calculations done? No explanations have been given in this regard.

3- It is better to present some manuscript results graphically, for instance, the variations of fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective membership model pay-off of the sample problem.

4- When abbreviated words such as ESG are written for the first time in the manuscript, their complete form should also be stated.

5- The conclusion section is written well, however, but the methodology is not informative and is very briefly organized. Also, it is recommended that the steps of the methodology and calculations be stated in the flowcharts to create a better attitude toward the problem. Some parameters of mathematical equations need to be introduced. Authors are suggested to define all variables after the first appearance in the manuscript.

5- Firstly, a specific gap in the literature should be mentioned. Afterward, the details of the innovation of the article, whether in terms of method or system model, should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript. The literature review in the introduction section needs to be more comprehensive, especially in the field of multi-objective optimization methods and the photovoltaic industry. It is recommended that the following articles be explained in detail: DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3026140. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115296. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.128345.

6- The advantages and disadvantages of the utilized method should be mentioned in the manuscript. Also, the industrial and managerial applications of the exploited method have not been stated.

7- How did the authors evaluate the correctness of their results? No explanation has been given in this regard.

8- The English written language of the article should be improved.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English written language of the article should be improved

Author Response

Answer for Report 2.

Thanks for reading this paper.

1- In the paper, the software used and the program used by the software are explained (lines 238-241).

3- The fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective membership model has been re-explained and calculated in lines 174-348.

4- Abbreviations such as ESG and CPM appear for the first time in the manuscript, and their completed forms were indicated.

5- Methodology and calculations have been rewritten, and all appear variables are defined. (lines 174-348.)

5- The literature has been rewritten, and the content of recommended academic journals has been added. All of these are also compared with other papers. Also, based on the examiner's recommendation, I read papers on the solar photovoltaic industry and fuzzy methods. This article also writes related papers in the literature discussion [18]. It establishes the relevance of the fuzzy theory used in this article.

6- According to Zimmermann [32], Yager [36], Liou, and Wang [35], the advantages are to integrate fuzzy multi-objective decision-making and defuzzification procedures to implement the co-existing problems of time, cost, and quality in uncertain environments. Managerial applications are to be stated in lines 346-468.

7- This revision uses a different α-cut method, which is more convenient and advanced for enterprises. All calculations and evaluation models are correctness written in lines 273-345.

8- Canada's scholars have corrected the English writing of the article.

The above description is for Report 2, and the paper's content is rewritten according to the suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The world of research often brings to the fore innovative models and methodologies that strive to address complex problems. This study under review delves deep into the challenges of sustainable project planning and decision-making, especially within the context of Taiwan's focus on photovoltaic green power generation. This review critically examines the presented study's various sections, from its abstract to its conclusion, highlighting the strengths and suggesting areas of improvement.

Abstract

The abstract provides a robust overview of the study, including its main focus, methodology, and results. The initial query sets the stage effectively by posing the question about sustainable decision-making. It clearly states the results in terms of project time, cost, and quality, offering a quick insight into the study's outcomes. The study's focus on sustainable roads and ESG goals shows its alignment with current global concerns.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       Phrases such as "expedites establishment" can be rephrased for better clarity.

·       While comprehensive, the abstract might benefit from more concise phrasing to avoid overwhelming the reader.

·       It might be helpful to briefly explain or simplify terms like "α-cut sets" for a broader readership.

·       The objectives can be more coherently structured for immediate understanding.

Introduction

The introduction begins by highlighting Taiwan's focus on photovoltaic green power generation, setting the stage for the study's significance. The challenges faced by Taiwan due to typhoons and the post-COVID-19 scenario's complications are well-presented, underscoring the need for the study. The objectives related to project completion time, cost, and quality are clearly laid out. The introduction provides an overview of the methodologies used, such as the Critical Path Method and the fuzzy mathematical programming models.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       The introduction can benefit from smoother transitions between ideas to ensure a logical flow of information.

·       Phrases like "non-linear and fuzzy multi-objective models" and "unclear multi-objective objective" seem repetitive and can be refined for clarity.

·       Terms like "unclear multi-objective objective" are ambiguous and can be made clearer.

·       The random "[1]" citation might need proper integration within the text.

·       While the introduction uses technical terms like "Critical Path Method (CPM)" and "ambiguous optimization environment", brief explanations might make it more accessible.

Literature Review

The section touches upon a range of studies, showcasing diverse methodologies and applications in the field of project compression and fuzzy decision-making. There are multiple references, implying a thorough literature review process. The literature aligns with the main themes of project compression, trade-offs between time, cost, quality, and fuzzy decision-making.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       The section seems disjointed in places. Grouping similar studies or methods could make the flow smoother.

·       Several terms, such as "fuzzy numbers," "α-cut concept," and "multi-objective studies," are used without sufficient explanation for readers unfamiliar with the domain.

·       There are sentences like "[4]. Suggested a binary integer..." where the author of the study is missing, making it hard to understand who suggested what.

·       Phrases like "time, cost, and quality" are repeated frequently, which could be reduced to make the writing more concise.

·       Sentences like "A fuzzy multi-objective non-linear model." are incomplete and don't provide a clear message.

Methodology

The methodology section is comprehensive and gives an in-depth look into the process by which the project scheduling is done, considering the multi-objective goals of time, cost, and quality. The beginning of the methodology clearly lays out the assumptions about the project activities, the relationship between project duration, cost, and quality, and the objective of the optimization process. The mathematical and functional relationship models are laid out in detail, providing a rigorous approach to optimization. Symbols used in the mathematical models are clearly defined, providing clarity to the reader. The 12-step process adds a procedural layer to the methodology, guiding readers through the process of implementing the models. The end of the methodology reiterates the model's primary objectives, which helps in emphasizing the goals.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       There are some terms like "collision finish times" that may not be immediately clear to all readers. Some terminology may benefit from a brief definition or clarification.

·       While the steps are well-defined, it might be helpful to cross-reference them with the earlier mathematical models to clearly indicate where each step draws from.

·       Some steps, especially around the calculations, could benefit from more detail or clarity. For instance, explaining how "a new set of feasible solutions is determined" in Step 9 could provide more insight.

·       Given the complexity of the methodology, visual aids, like flowcharts, might help readers understand the sequence of steps or the relationship between various components better (read as suggested only).

·       Some information seems repetitive, e.g., the objective of the methodology, which is mentioned at the beginning and end of the section. It's essential to ensure that repeated information provides value.

·       It would be beneficial to integrate references to prior research or studies that influenced the methodology, ensuring the reader understands the foundation of the study.

Results

The results section of this research details the application of the fuzzy α-cut sets theory to solve a non-linear optimization problem that focuses on project time, cost, and quality. The application of the fuzzy α-cut sets theory allowed the research to successfully develop non-linear intervals for a comprehensive evaluation of project parameters—time, cost, and quality—within the α-cut range of 0 to 1. The study proves that through this fuzzy multi-objective decision-making approach, a decision-maker can make informed choices, considering the inherent trade-offs among time, cost, and quality. The presented results are well-organized, providing a clear picture of the optimization process and outcomes. The use of tables provides a structured way to showcase complex data. The research has clearly stated the benefits and trade-offs, such as the reduction in project time at the expense of increased costs and decreased quality. For future work, it would be valuable to explore the implications of these trade-offs in real-world scenarios, specifically how decision-makers weigh the importance of time, cost, and quality in their projects. It might also be beneficial to detail the reasons behind the trade-offs witnessed, as understanding the factors driving these results can offer deeper insights into the optimization process.

Discussion

The discussion section of this research explores the applicability and significance of the optimization fuzzy multi-objective model for the construction of a photovoltaic power station at Taiwan's logistic center. The emphasis is on achieving a balance among economic, environmental, and social factors, specifically within the context of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles. The discussion clearly illustrates the real-world relevance of the fuzzy multi-objective model in addressing sustainability challenges. The integration of ESG principles with the decision-making model showcases a comprehensive approach to sustainable development. The discussion section offers a well-structured insight into how the optimization fuzzy multi-objective model can be effectively employed in infrastructure projects that prioritize sustainability. The focus on ESG principles and the specific context of Taiwan's logistic center provides depth to the narrative, making it both relevant and instructive.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       The constraints are well outlined, but it would benefit the reader to understand how the fuzzy multi-objective model can address or mitigate these constraints specifically.

·       Real-world examples or case studies of similar implementations, if any, could add weight to the discussion.

·       Potential challenges or criticisms of the model could be acknowledged to provide a well-rounded perspective.

Conclusion

The conclusion wraps up the study on the fuzzy multi-objective optimization model and its application in project planning, particularly focusing on Taiwan's logistics center construction and the integration of a photovoltaic power station. The key aspects covered are the challenges in balancing time, cost, and quality, and how the model addresses these challenges, incorporating risk attitudes. The conclusion comprehensively encapsulates the primary objectives, findings, and implications of the study. The emphasis on balancing competing objectives, and the introduction of risk attitudes, makes the model's relevance clear. The specific outcomes (e.g., reduced time and adjusted costs) highlight the model's practical implications, giving concrete examples of its applicability.

However, there are several areas for Improvement:

·       The conclusion is dense, and while it provides a comprehensive summary, it might benefit from simplification for a broader audience. Breaking down complex concepts or using more straightforward language could improve accessibility.

·       While the model's contributions are well-outlined, potential limitations or challenges in its implementation could be briefly addressed to provide a balanced perspective.

·       A call for future research or recommendations for further refinement of the model might enhance the conclusion's impact.

Summary

In essence, the study in review showcases a profound effort to integrate fuzzy multi-objective optimization models into sustainable project planning, emphasizing the balance between time, cost, and quality. The research is rich in data, detailed in its approach, and is aligned with pressing global concerns, notably the emphasis on sustainable roads and ESG goals. While the study stands strong in its core findings and applications, there are areas, as highlighted, where it could be fine-tuned for enhanced clarity, coherence, and comprehensiveness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English quality is quite good, but there are some grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and redundancies that should be addressed.

Specific Suggestions:

Abstract Line 11: "This article expedites establishment" could be clearer as "This article discusses the accelerated establishment."

Line 13-14: "It addresses the traditional time-cost trade-off problem assuming determinism in activity time and cost." is a bit wordy and could be simplified to "It addresses the traditional time-cost trade-off, assuming deterministic activity times and costs."

Line 14: "introduces a project compression, fuzzy non-linear multi-objective model" can be simplified to "introduces a fuzzy non-linear multi-objective model for project compression."

Line 17: "photovoltaic energy to achieve ESG goals." should specify what "ESG" stands for at its first mention, even if it's commonly understood in the field.

Line 18: "Developing a decision model to expedite the project and identify the best strategies under uncertainties is emphasized." could be reworded to "The emphasis is on developing a decision model to expedite projects and identify optimal strategies amid uncertainties."

Introduction Line 31-32: "Taiwan's vulnerability to typhoons to blow down photovoltaic power stations causes significant losses." can be simplified to "Taiwan's vulnerability to typhoons causes significant losses to photovoltaic power stations."

Line 35-37: "Practical reasons for accelerating projects include meeting deadlines and recovering from delays, especially during the post-COVID-19 period when there is a shortage of construction labor." This section seems to state the obvious and could be more concise.

Line 58-62: "The drive of many large e-commerce platforms towards self-built logistics centers and capital-intensive strategies to build photovoltaic power profit is leading to a surge in demand for logistics center construction and rush work." This sentence is quite long and could be broken down for clarity.

Line 65: "A linear relationship in depicting the time and cost of a job item." This sentence is incomplete.

Line 77-78: "trade-offs (trade-offs)" – Using the term twice in succession is redundant.

Line 98: "However, this study integrates the Critical Path Method (CPM) with fuzzy theory's α-cut concept" – The use of "However" seems misplaced since this isn't contrasting with a previous statement.

In some places, the term "multi-objective" has a hyphen, while in others, it doesn't. It's essential to be consistent throughout the document.

The usage of terms like "project (rushing) completion time" or "project (rushing) total cost" could be confusing. If "rushing" is a specific term or approach being used, it should be clearly defined in the introduction or earlier parts of the paper.

void starting sentences with "And", as seen in line 193. Instead, you can use "Furthermore" or combine the sentence with the previous one.

In line 257-260, the statement "Taiwan's logistic center presents a suitable project to demonstrate..." feels repetitive considering the prior content.

The sentence in lines 193-194, "And using the α-cut method converts the fuzzy project duration and direct cost into crisp values," could be clearer. Perhaps: "The α-cut method is used to convert the fuzzy project duration and direct costs into crisp values."

In line 222-223, the phrasing "Taiwan's logistic center project provides a unique setting to integrate ESG principles with advanced decision-making methodologies" is slightly wordy. It can be condensed to "Taiwan's logistic center uniquely integrates ESG principles with advanced decision-making methodologies."

Ensure clarity in presenting findings. For instance, lines 207-209 present results; however, a clearer connection between the objectives and the outcomes will aid comprehension.

There are instances where spaces before and after punctuation marks, especially quotation marks, are inconsistent. E.g., lines 188-189.

Consider using bullet points or subheadings for areas such as "Factors affecting the constraints" in lines 241-255. It would make the document more reader-friendly.

The methodology and results are well-detailed. However, readers may benefit from more context or background about why specific methods, like the fuzzy α-cut sets theory, were chosen.

The conclusion does a commendable job summarizing the findings and reiterating the paper's significance. Ensure that critical insights are not buried in technical jargon, making them accessible to a broader audience.

The document is technically rich and offers valuable insights into the application of fuzzy multi-objective optimization models for project planning. Some minor edits in language, style, and formatting will enhance its clarity and impact.

Author Response

Please  see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Even though the topic seems interesting, there is not enough detail to support a scientific article. This reads more like a report. 

It will need restructuring and re-writing in many areas. Please see detail comments on the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs some moderate changes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors make significant improvements in this new version of the paper. However, some small points still need to be improved before publication. See below:

In the introduction, there is a need to better justify the topic, make it clear what the research gap is, demonstrate why this study is important compared to others already published in the area.

The theoretical framework section needs generate critical analyzes between the references that allow the reader to understand and consolidate the understanding of the importance of this study compared to those already published.

In the conclusions, insert what were the limitations of the research and how such limitations were circumvented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the necessary modifications are not performed. The authors strongly recommend adding more details about the utilized software. To follow the research process, the readers need more information about the software and the methodology. The literature review section is not yet focused on the main goals of the current study and the scientific research gap is not obvious. The authors should deeply improve the introduction section by using the suggested papers in the first review report and highlighting the research innovation. Also, the assumptions and limitations of the current research should be explained. Clarifications about the validation of results are not satisfactory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' response to the extensive review appears to be meticulous and comprehensive, demonstrating a commitment to improving the quality of their manuscript. Their efforts to address each point raised reflect a deep engagement with the feedback. The rewritten abstract appears to have been revised in accordance with several of the initial recommendations, particularly in terms of providing a robust overview of the study, its methodology, and its implications. However, a critical evaluation reveals both strengths and areas that might require further refinement.

Strengths

1.       Clarity in Objectives: The abstract clearly states the primary objective of the study, which is to expedite the generation of green electricity while aligning with ESG principles. This aligns well with the suggestion to ensure the objectives are coherently structured.

2.       Inclusion of Methodology: The authors detail the methodologies employed, including the Critical Path Method (CPM) and various mathematical models, thereby offering readers an immediate insight into the study's methodological rigor.

3.       Terminological Explanation: The abstract includes an expanded explanation of acronyms like ESG, enhancing its accessibility to a broader readership.

4.       Results and Insights: Unlike many abstracts, this one goes beyond stating objectives and methods to include specific findings and insights, such as the importance of construction time in controlling costs.

Areas for Further Refinement

1.       Length and Complexity: The abstract is quite dense, incorporating a wide range of information from objectives and methods to specific results. While comprehensive, this could potentially overwhelm the reader. Streamlining the content might enhance readability without sacrificing essential details.

2.       Sentence Structure and Flow: Some sentences in the abstract are long and packed with information. Breaking them down into shorter, more digestible sentences could improve readability.

3.       Clarification of Results: While the abstract mentions specific numbers and findings, the significance of these could be made clearer. For instance, it would help to briefly explain why the "fuzzy cost interval" and "factor risk values" are important (in one or two short sentences).

Overall, the revised abstract demonstrates a significant effort to address the previous concerns, although some areas could benefit from further refinement for clarity and conciseness.

The rewritten introduction appears to be largely in accordance with the feedback provided, manifesting improvements in clarity and coherence. Nonetheless, upon a rigorous analysis, there are merits and areas that warrant further attention.

Strengths

1.       Contextualization and Rationale: The introduction offers a thorough contextual backdrop, outlining the significance of solar photovoltaic power stations in Taiwan and their importance for ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goals. This aligns well with the criterion for establishing the study's significance.

2.       Objectives and Methodology: The introduction articulates the study's objectives and the methodologies employed, including the Critical Path Method (CPM) and fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective models, thereby adhering to the suggestion to lay out these aspects clearly.

3.       Linkage to Global Trends and Issues: The introduction successfully integrates global challenges, such as extreme weather conditions and labor shortages due to COVID-19, into the narrative, thereby enhancing the relevance of the study.

4.       Logical Flow: The structure of the introduction is logically sequenced, with transitions from the problem context to the study's aims and methodologies. This is an improvement in line with the suggestion to enhance the flow between different ideas.

Areas for Further Refinement

1.       Grammatical Structure and Syntax: Some sentences suffer from awkward phrasing and grammatical issues, which may impair readability and comprehension. For example, "The generated sold electricity to the Taiwan Power Company under a contract guaranteeing a 20-year electricity purchase" appears to be a fragment and could be restructured for clarity.

2.       Technical Jargon: While the introduction does provide some explanation of technical terms, there is room for making it more accessible to a broader readership by briefly explaining or simplifying terms like "crash time."

3.       Conciseness: The introduction, while comprehensive, could benefit from more concise phrasing. There are instances where the same point is reiterated, such as the importance of ESG, which could be streamlined.

4.       Clarity in Purpose Statement: While the short-term and long-term objectives are mentioned, making them more explicit could add clarity. For instance, specifying what constitutes "short-term" and "long-term" would provide more context.

In summary, the rewritten introduction demonstrates a conscientious effort to address previously identified issues and has made significant strides towards improving the manuscript's quality. However, further refinements in syntax, terminology, and structure could elevate the manuscript to a higher academic standard.

The revised literature review section demonstrates an earnest endeavor to encapsulate a diverse array of research, touching upon crucial dimensions like project management, sustainability, and mathematical modeling. However, it is imperative to exercise critical scrutiny to ensure scholarly rigor. Below are some points for consideration.

Strengths:

1.       Coverage: The literature review provides an extensive overview of key theories, models, and empirical studies, fulfilling the prerequisite for a comprehensive research backdrop.

2.       Interdisciplinary Approach: The review commendably bridges various disciplines, from economics and project management to computational methods and sustainability, thus underscoring the multifaceted nature of the problem at hand.

3.       Contextual Relevance: The authors have made an effort to link the theoretical discussions to the specific challenges and opportunities in the logistics and renewable energy sectors, enhancing the applicability of the research.

4.       Methodological Insights: The section provides valuable information on different models and theories, such as fuzzy theory and mathematical programming, that have been applied in similar contexts.

Areas for Further Refinement:

1.       Coherence and Structure: The review could benefit from a more structured approach, categorizing the literature under thematic headings to guide the reader through the complex tapestry of research it aims to cover.

2.       Syntax and Grammar: There are various grammatical inconsistencies and awkward phrasings (e.g., "The project quality is the cumulative result of all items performed during the project's lifecycle"). Such issues could impede the reader’s comprehension and distract from the content.

3.       Critical Analysis: While the section is rich in description, it somewhat lacks in analytical depth. For example, it could benefit from discussing the limitations or criticisms of the methods and theories cited, thus offering a more nuanced understanding of the field.

4.       Transition and Flow: The review could improve in terms of logical flow between different research studies and theories discussed. Seamless transitions would contribute to a more coherent and persuasive narrative.

5.       Outcome Summary: The section could conclude with a summary that encapsulates the main findings from the existing literature and elucidates the research gap that the current study aims to fill.

By addressing these areas for further refinement, the literature review could reach a higher standard of scholarly rigor and contribute more effectively to the paper’s overarching narrative.

The Methodology section presents a multifaceted approach that aims to blend nonlinear mathematical models with fuzzy set theory to address the intricate challenge of project scheduling in the construction of solar photovoltaic power stations. Below are my observations segmented into strengths and areas for improvement:

Strengths:

1.       Theoretical Foundations: The methodology is predicated on a well-grounded theoretical framework, incorporating nonlinear mathematical models and fuzzy set theory, underscoring its robustness.

2.       Objective Function Complexity: The model's objective functions and constraints appear to be formulated to capture the multifaceted nature of project management, including cost, time, and quality factors.

3.       Defuzzification Techniques: The methodological design incorporates different defuzzification techniques, enhancing the model's adaptability and rigor.

4.       Detailed Explanation: The section provides a detailed breakdown of mathematical notations and equations, facilitating interpretability and replicability.

5.       Problem Relevance: The model aims to tackle real-world problems, thereby extending its practical applicability.

Areas for Improvement:

1.       Methodological Assumptions: The methodology could elaborate on any assumptions made in formulating the model, as assumptions can significantly influence the model's applicability and interpretability.

2.       Comparative Analysis: While defuzzification methods are mentioned, a rationale for the chosen method over alternatives could add depth to the analysis.

3.       Validation Strategy: The section could elucidate how the model's predictions or solutions will be validated.

4.       Syntax and Formatting: The text suffers from minor grammatical issues and could benefit from a thorough proofreading.

5.       Problem Statement Alignment: While the methodology is detailed, ensuring its alignment with the problem statement will create a cohesive narrative.

By addressing these areas, the methodology section can attain a higher level of academic rigor and make a more substantial contribution to the extant literature.

Observations and Recommendations for the Results Section:

1.       Clarity and Structure: The Results section is highly intricate, containing numerous tables and mathematical formulations. However, it may benefit from a more structured presentation to facilitate easier comprehension.

2.       Narrative Flow: The text oscillates between the data, its analysis, and implications. A more linear narrative, moving from data to analysis to implications, would provide better readability.

3.       Mathematical Formulations: While you've employed complex equations and algorithms, they might become more comprehensible with accompanying explanatory text. Consider breaking down complex equations and providing step-by-step interpretations.

4.       Units and Dimensions: Ensure that all tables have units specified for each quantity.

5.       Ambiguity in Language: Phrases like "Indicates that between two numerals are inversely proportional" are not entirely clear. Such instances must be clarified for exact interpretation.

6.       Relevance of Metrics: It would be beneficial to elucidate why certain metrics like unit time cost or unit time quality are of significance in the context of your study.

7.       Error Measures: Consider including confidence intervals or other measures of error for the statistical values presented, adhering to scientific best practices.

8.       Proofreading: The section contains minor grammatical and typographical errors that should be corrected. For example, "signifying that even in a crash state, the number of crash days remains the highest, 300 and the cost per unit of time remains the largest (as shown in Table 6, denoted by *)." could be confusing.

In summary, while the section is information-rich, it would substantially benefit from refinements in structure, clarity, and methodological exposition. These adjustments are crucial for ensuring that the paper meets the rigorous standards expected in high-impact scientific journals.

The revised Discussion section presents a comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand, which is the optimization of the construction process for solar photovoltaic power stations. The narrative revolves around the utilization of a fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective method as a decision-making tool. However, there are several elements that warrant further refinement for a more academically rigorous presentation.

Stylistic and Structural Considerations:

1.       Clarity and Precision: The section occasionally suffers from ambiguous phrasing. For example, the phrase "this method is closer to the natural environment for an uncertain environment" (Lines 357) could be more precisely articulated to convey its scientific implication.

2.       Cohesion: The section transitions from methodological discussions to industry practices without clear demarcation. Consider using subheadings or transitional sentences to guide the reader more smoothly through the discussion.

3.       Interdisciplinary Juxtaposition: The text incorporates elements from operations research, economics, and energy science. While such interdisciplinary approaches are laudable, they require careful integration to ensure a cohesive argument.

Content-related Recommendations:

1.       Comparative Analysis: The discussion could benefit from a more thorough comparison between the proposed fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective method and existing methodologies. A tabulated representation could succinctly capture the advantages and limitations of each.

2.       Validation and Verification: The section lacks a discussion on how the proposed model has been validated against empirical data or other models. Such a section would greatly enhance the credibility of the study.

3.       Quality-Cost-Time Trade-off: While the study does discuss the importance of not compromising quality, a more nuanced discussion on how to navigate the trade-offs between quality, cost, and time could offer a more comprehensive guide for decision-makers.

4.       Future Implications: The discussion would be more complete with an exploration of the potential future developments or applications of the proposed method, especially in the context of the rapidly evolving renewable energy landscape.

5.       Policy Implications: Given that the energy sector often intersects with public policy, a section discussing the policy implications of the proposed model could make the paper more impactful.

6.       Operationalization: Consider discussing how the model can be operationalized in a real-world setting, including but not limited to, the type of data needed, the scalability of the model, and the potential for automation.

7.       Theoretical Contributions: Lastly, articulating the theoretical contributions of this study to the existing body of literature would fortify its academic standing.

By incorporating these revisions, the Discussion section could substantially improve in terms of scientific rigor, readability, and overall impact.

The Conclusion section you've drafted presents an intricate and layered synthesis of the research findings, methodologies, and implications, adhering to the multidisciplinary nature of the work. However, there are areas where the presentation could be further refined to meet the highest standards of academic rigor.

Structural and Stylistic Suggestions:

1.       Sectioning: Consider employing sub-sections for various elements like key findings, contributions, and future research directions to enhance navigability and readability.

2.       Consistency: There are recurring phrases that can be streamlined for better coherence. For instance, the phrase "the cost has become a passive element, and the active components are quality and construction time" appears twice (Lines 415-416, 425-426) and could be consolidated.

Content-related Recommendations:

1.       Theoretical Contributions: While the conclusion outlines the practical applications quite extensively, summarizing the theoretical contributions could offer a more rounded view of the paper's impact.

2.       Limitations: Any scientific endeavor has its scope and limitations. Explicitly stating these limitations, especially concerning the fuzzy nonlinear multi-objective models used, will add credibility to the study.

3.       Methodological Recapitulation: The conclusion currently dives deeply into the results and their implications. A brief recapitulation of the methodologies employed would serve as a useful bridge between the paper's body and its conclusions.

4.       Future Research Directions: The section on "Research Recommendations" could be elaborated further to include potential avenues for subsequent research, including, for instance, the applicability of the model in other renewable energy sectors.

5.       ESG Implications: You've mentioned the importance of this model for ESG goals. It might be beneficial to expand on this, perhaps citing statistics or studies that quantify the environmental and social benefits of accelerated construction of renewable energy facilities.

6.       AI and Big Data: Since the paper points toward the use of artificial intelligence in future applications, a discussion on how Big Data could integrate with the fuzzy models would be insightful.

7.       Concluding Remarks: A succinct summarization tying all elements of the conclusion together can serve as a strong closing statement, reinforcing the study's importance and contributions to the field.

By incorporating these suggestions, the Conclusion section would likely elevate in terms of both academic rigor and communicative effectiveness, making a stronger case for the study's contributions to the scientific community.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required (see previous section).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

I can see the efforts in restructuring the manuscript. The understanding of this research has been improved, however I still cannot see the relevance to sustainability as it reads a lot as a statistical document. Try to create the links with sustainability, why is this method more sustainable? what do you gain? What is the impact in the field? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not meet the indications from the previous round.

In the introduction, there is a need to better justify the topic, make it clear what the research gap is, demonstrate why this study is important compared to others already published in the area.

The theoretical framework section needs generate critical analyzes between the references that allow the reader to understand and consolidate the understanding of the importance of this study compared to those already published.

In the conclusions, insert what were the limitations of the research and how such limitations were circumvented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the essential amendments have been made. The manuscript is acceptable and can be posted in the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

I can see the efforts on revising this manuscript. It is still heavily infused with mathematical typologies, however there is a general understanding on its contribution to scholarship. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not see how 're writing' literature makes this an article which offers new knowledge. 

The answer to my questions on sustainability is not sufficient. This is important to publish in such a journal. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor edits

Author Response

see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf