A Feasibility Discussion: Is ML Suitable for Predicting Sustainable Patterns in Consumer Product Preferences?

No

Reviewer 1’ comments

Reply from author

1

It is important to clearly explain the originality of the work and the research gap it aims to fill.

Thanks to the reviewers’ suggestions. This manuscript has used new words to explain the reasons for this article and the research gaps it aims to fill in the introduction chapter. Please see the penultimate line of the second paragraph of Chapter 1, and the text of the third paragraph of Chapter 1.

2

The abstract and introduction should include a description of the background, research gap, motivation, methodology, and techniques used.

On the comments of reviewer, the abstract and introduction of this manuscript have been modified as follows,

l   Abstract: This research has added a description of the background, research gap, motivation, methods and techniques used in the abstract and rewritten it. Please refer to the columns 1 to 8 in abstract section.

l   Introduction: This study has been rewritten with a description of the background, research gaps, motivation, methods, and techniques used in the Introduction. See Introduction.

3

The paper lacks sufficient technical detail, particularly with regard to the methods and results. It would be helpful to provide more information on these areas.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has made the following adjustments in the description of technical details:

l   Newly added a chapter for describing methods and techniques: the author added   the Chapter 3 Methodology, for dedicating to the technical details of the research in this manuscript.

l   In order to provide more research technical details and domain details, in the Chapter 3 Methodology, the theory and implementations of the KJ method, AHP method and machine learning method used in the paper are described separately and independently.

4

There are outdated references in the document, particularly those from before 2015, which should be removed.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has removed references before 2015. The number of references was reduced from 129 to 70.

5

There are not enough citations in the introduction section. Using the below four key references in the introduction section, discuss a few sentences about the paper's topic and new state-of-the-art subjects.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6651

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9932414/

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16041

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210670722004061

On the comments of reviewer, the author has included the key references in the Chapter 2 Literature Review for discussing about the paper's topic and new state-of-the-art subjects. Please refers to the third paragraph in Chapter 2 Literature Review.

 6

It is important to avoid leaving any sections of the paper blank such as section 2.

On the comments of reviewer, the paper blank in section 2 has been removed.

7

The conclusion should include a discussion of the implications of the work beyond the scope of the current study and suggest potential avenues for future research.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has added a text paragraph for the discussion of the work impact of the current study scope as well as for potential avenues for future research. Please see the second paragraph of the Conclusion section.

No

Reviewer 2’ comments

Reply from author

1

Try to provide a shorter Abstract.

Thanks to the reviewers’ suggestions. This manuscript has shorted the Abstract form 455 words to 284 words. The shorter Abstract is provided. Please refers to new Abstract.

2

Please sort keywords.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has sorted the keywords. Please refers to new keywords.

3

3 points: like it very much, 4 points: like it very much, 5 points: like it very much : Why 3, 4 AND 5 ARE THE SAME?

On the comments of reviewer, the manuscript has corrected the same letters as 3 point: normal, 4 point: like it, 5 point: like it very much. Please refers to the revision in Step2 at 3.1.2.sction of Chapter 3 in new manuscript.

4

First paragraph in 3.2. section of Chapter 3 is too long sentence. Please correct it to some shorter sentences.

On the comments of reviewer, the manuscript has shorted the sentences of first paragraph in 3.2. section of Chapter 3. Please refers to the revision of first paragraph in 4.2. section of Chapter 4 in new manuscript.   

5

First paragraph in 3.3. section of Chapter 3 is too long sentence. Please correct it to some shorter sentences.

On the comments of reviewer, the manuscript has shorted the sentences of first paragraph in 3.3. section of Chapter 3. Please refers to the revision of first paragraph in 4.3. section of Chapter 4 in new manuscript.

6

First paragraph in 3.4. section of Chapter 3 is too long sentence. Please correct it to some shorter sentences.

On the comments of reviewer, the manuscript has shorted the sentences of first paragraph in 3.4. section of Chapter 3. Please refers to the revision of first paragraph in 4.4. section of Chapter 4 in new manuscript.

No

Reviewer 3’ comments

Reply from author

1

The manuscript is not well organized in the present form. It is more like an experimental report but a scientific paper. There are many long paragraphs, and the reader gets lost in the reading.

Thanks to the reviewer for your suggestions, in response to reviewer, this paper has made the several following modifications which can be seen in following replies.

2

The abstract does not follow the appropriate academic conventions. It contains more than 450 words. It is confusing and there is not a coherent content line. No mention of main goals, methodology.

As suggested by the reviewer, the abstract paragraphs of this manuscript have been modified as follows,

l   Add a text description of the main goals and methodology. Please see columns 1 to 8 in abstract paragraphs.

l   Shorten the word count of the entire abstract paragraph to less than 450 words.

3

Introduction: The introduction presents a confusing structure. It does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the research. Literature review is reduced to a list of studies without any critical view. In fact, there is only one (long) paragraph in the Introduction as what it seems literature review. Authors should reorganize this part or maybe they should devote a different section to critically review the existing literature. For instance, I suggest using a table with the different proposals that the authors present and make a critical summary. 129 references seem to be a higher number.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has reorganized the content of the Chapter 1, Introduction. The following describes the revisions made in the Chapter 1 of this paper,

l   After the first paragraph of the Chapter 1 and after the second paragraph of the Chapter 1, critical points of view are added to review the existing literature. These discussions illustrate the gaps in existing research that this paper again fills.

l   In addition, this manuscript has removed references before 2015. The number of references was reduced from 129 to 61.

4

The objectives are not well structured. There are no clear objectives. Authors need to think about their goals, and how they are going to achieve them. For instance, where is the methodology?

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has added new text content to describe objectives. The revisions are followings:

l   Add the third paragraph to the Chapter 1 to describe the research objectives.

l   Add an additional chapter, Chapter 3 Methodology, for describing the implementation details of the research techniques used in this manuscript. And to illustrate how the research method of this study achieves the research objectives.

5

Results should be described and explained in a more well-structured way. There are no images in the manuscript. There is neither graphical abstract nor images explaining the results.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has added a graphical abstract for explaining the results. Please see Figure 6.

6

Conclusions: Conclusion must reflect upon the research and its main contribution. The concluding section should not be limited to report a summary of what has been done in the paper. It should also include a brief discussion on the achieved results and possible implications. It has also to include the main research limitations and to mention future research.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has added a text paragraph for the discussion of the work impact of the current study scope as well as for potential avenues for future research. Please see the second paragraph of the Conclusion section.

No

Reviewer 4’ comments

Reply from author

1

The paper offers a machine learning approach to predict sustainable patterns in consumer product preferences by comparing predictive power to that of traditional methods. The research topic is interesting, however, in its current format and content I cannot support its publication in Sustainability.

Thanks to the reviewer for your suggestions, in response to reviewer, this paper has made the several following modifications which can be seen in following replies

2

I have the following recommendation to improve the quality of the paper:

- Abstract is too long and does not meet the requirements of the journal. Check: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

As suggested by the reviewer, the abstract paragraphs of this manuscript have been modified as follows,

l   Add a text description of the main goals and methodology. Please see columns 1 to 8 in abstract paragraphs.

l   Shorten the word count of the entire abstract paragraph to less than 450 words.

3

Section 1 is too long and complex to serve as an Introduction. It should briefly position the paper in academic literature and in broad context, formulate research questions and hypotheses, define its added values, summarize its results, and introduce the rest of the paper. I recommend restructuring it by keeping it short, putting results of literature survey into a Literature review subsection and the methodological parts into the Research methods section.

On the comments of reviewer, the Chapter 1 of this manuscript has been modified as follows,

l   Briefly position the manuscript at the end of the second paragraph of Chapter 1. Please see the penultimate line of the second paragraph of Chapter 1.

l   Continuing the manuscript positioning at the end of the second paragraph of Chapter 1, explain the research question in the third paragraph of Chapter 1.

l   Continuing the research question statement in the third paragraph of Chapter 1, explain the research hypothesis in the fourth paragraph of Chapter 1.

l   Continuing the research hypothesis in the fourth paragraph of the first chapter, the added value of the research is explained in the fifth paragraph of Chapter 1.

l   Introduce the rest of the paper in the sixth paragraph of Chapter 1.

l   Added the Chapter 2 of literature review to place the results of the original literature survey of the Chapter 1.

l   Chapter 3 Methodology was established to place the content of the original research method in Chapter 1.

4

Process of experiment is the same in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. It is superfluous to repeat it three times.

On the comments of reviewer, in order not to make the introduction of the experimental process in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 too similar, this manuscript has completely rewritten the experimental process of this manuscript based on the concept of the implementation ways of the technical method used in the manuscript. For the revised text, please refer to Sections 3.1., 3.2. and 3.3. of Chapter 3 Methodology.

5

It should be in-depth described in the Research methods section how AHP estimated the weights of criteria, and how the consistency of judgements were checked.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has described the weight of the AHP method estimation standard and how to check the consistency of the judgment in Chapter 3 Methodology. For this description, please refer to the step descriptions of Step6. Step7. Step8. in 3.3.2. AHP method analysis and forecasting work section.

6

Elaborate the drawbacks of KJ and AHP from methodological points of view, and demonstrate why ML based techniques should operate better.

On the comments of reviewer, in order to elaborate the drawbacks of KJ and AHP from methodological points of view and demonstrate why ML based techniques should operate better, in Chapter 2 Literature Review, the manuscript has described and compared the theory background and applied results of KJ method, AHP method and ML method. By this way, it is demonstrated that why ML based techniques should operate better.

7

The paper lacks of analyzing the applied neural network technique in the ML based experiment. It should be supplemented together with the applied hyperparameters, network structure and training algorithm. It is only transparent in the paper how training and testing samples have been separated.

On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has made the supplement of the set parameters, network structure and training algorithm when using ML. For this supplementary text, please refer to Step3. machine learning training in Chapter 3 Methodology, 3.1.2. Analysis and Predicting Work Section.

8

Explain why AHP conclusively predicted values higher than 5. I challenge whether author applied adequate settings in the process to arrive at such bad predictive results. 0% accuracy is too strange to be true.

On the comments of reviewer, the reason why AHP conclusively predicted values higher than 5 is explained as follows: in this study, the AHP method predicts the preference of consumers' coffee machine samples by comparing the preferences of consumers' coffee machine samples one by one in pairwise pairs, unlike the KJ method that predicts consumers' coffee machine samples by grouping coffee machine samples. According to this, the AHP method will obtain the consumer preference results of each coffee machine sample, but the KJ method cannot. Since there are 20 coffee machine samples in this study, the AHP method analysis obtains a total of 20 observations (the 20 observations are the predicted values of the coffee machine sample preferences of 20 consumers). This is the reason why AHP predicted values higher than 5. This means that the AHP method observes consumer preferences in an individual way, unlike the KJ method which observes consumer preferences in a whole way. The correct rate of AHP's prediction of consumer preference is very low (0%) can only be said that the evaluation pattern of consumer preference predicted by AHP method is different from the actual evaluation pattern of consumers' preference. Consumers' actual preference evaluation pattern tend to be carried out in an intuitive and classified way, rather than one-by-one comparison. This article also puts this explanatory text in Section 5.2. of Chapter 5 to explain the reason for the gap between the prediction results of the AHP method and the KJ method.

9

Improve Discussion section by comparing your results to other papers having ML methods in focus to compare with AHP or KJ.

On the comments of reviewer, in the Discussion Chapter, this manuscript has compared results to other papers having ML methods in focus to compare with AHP or KJ.

10

The English language and style of the paper are not acceptable at this journal level. Author should hire the services of a native English professional to extensively proofread the paper.

On the comments of reviewer, the author of this paper has invited native English professionals to conduct extensive proofreading of the manuscript.

No

Reviewer 1’ comments

Reply from author

1

It can be accepted now.

Thanks to the reviewer’s agreement.

No

Reviewer 2’ comments

Reply from author

1

The paper is substantially improved by the revisions.  All my recommendations have been addressed. The structure and contents of the paper meet the requirements of the journal. The author has include the chapter describe the research objectives and a new chapter is also included describing the implementation details of the research techniques used in this manuscript. 

Thanks to the reviewer’s agreement.

2

The introduction has been improved. However I would improve the table structure with the different proposals that the authors present and make a critical summary. The discussion section compare the result to other papers. The structure and contents of the paper meet the requirements of the journal. 

l On the comments of reviewer, table structures of those tables in Chapter 4 has been improved. The revision works of table structure are following,

1.     The author separates data in original tables as Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 into new tables as Table 9 ~ Table 17. We add nine new tables to improve the table structures.

2.     In addition. The author rewrites the content of Chapter 4 to make a clear description for those new tables.

3.     Finally, the author also adds a new section, section 4.5, to make a critical summary for study results.

l On the other comments of reviewer, the discussion section has also been improved as following : the results of the manuscript has been comparing to the results of other papers. Please see the yellow color note in discussion section.

3

 I agree with publication in the present form after minor revisions

No

Reviewer 3’ comments

Reply from author

1

Author has made substantial efforts to improve the quality of the paper. All my recommendations have been addressed, responded, and the required revisions have been made. Now the structure and contents of the paper meet the requirements of the journal. I really appreciate the invested resources of the author.

Thanks to the reviewer’s agreement.

2

However, further copyediting is needed, as the linguistic quality of the paper still does not satisfy the requirements of the journal. Even the title of the paper does not sound well in English.

l On the comments of reviewer, this manuscript has revised the title as following: A Feasibility Discussion: Is ML Suitable for Predicting Sus-tainable Patterns in Consumer Product Preferences?

l For the linguistic quality modification part, I need to ask the journal to recommend English experts to help improve.

3

On condition that the grammatic and stylistic corrections are done, I will support the publication of the paper in Sustainability. Minor revision stands for further proofreading.