Application of Fuzzy Theory to the Investigation of Children’s Preference for Wooden Toy Materials—A Case Study of Rocking Horses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract: According to the journal's guidelines, the abstract should be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. The authors are strongly encouraged to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
Line 48: This should be stated later in the manuscript.
Line 63: Punctuation mark is missing.
Section 1: Section 1 is too long and should be divided into smaller sections. An introduction to the topic under study should be the first section where the research objectives will be briefly stated. The literature review should be a separate section. A comprehensive literature review of wooden toys and childrens' perception along with pertinent studies to the one being carried out (with similar methodologies or not) should be presented before introducing research purpose, scope, limitations and methodology. What has pertinent literature discussed in the past? What have been the research trends, conclusions, limitations and gaps to be filled by future research? What research gaps does this study attempt to fill? What is this paper contribution? These questions should be able to be answered in your manuscript.
Line 240: This is not a Table. Please try to modify this figure to only include one editable caption placed under the figure.
Lines 271-274, 291-296: This is not the place to highlight past pertinent literature. Details about such efforts should have already been given in the previous section. Similarities to these methodologies should have also been stated earlier in the manuscript.
Line 315-323: This part of the manuscript needs to be rephrased.
Line 327: Please modify this figure so the red zig-zag line does not show.
Lines 341,344: Please be consistent with the punctuation marks used.
Lines 360, 374, 417: The table caption is not correctly placed. The captions for figure 7 and figure 9 are not correctly placed.
Line 454: "
Conclusion: I do not think there is a need to create subsections, since the text is not that lengthy. However, the findings should be explained in more detail.
Lines 525-534: You should elaborate on future research directions emerging from the results of your research.
References & In-text Citations: Please abide by the journal's in-text citation and reference guidelines.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1
1.: Abstract: According to the journal's guidelines, the abstract should be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. The authors are strongly encouraged to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
Responses: The abstract has already been a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.
2.Line 48: This should be stated later in the manuscript.
Responses: This sentence has been moved to the scope of study later in the article
3.Point 3.Line 63: Punctuation mark is missing.
Responses: It's already been added.
4.Section 1: Section 1 is too long and should be divided into smaller sections. An introduction to the topic under study should be the first section where the research objectives will be briefly stated. The literature review should be a separate section. A comprehensive literature review of wooden toys and childrens' perception along with pertinent studies to the one being carried out (with similar methodologies or not) should be presented before introducing research purpose, scope, limitations and methodology. What has pertinent literature discussed in the past? What have been the research trends, conclusions, limitations and gaps to be filled by future research? What research gaps does this study attempt to fill? What is this paper contribution? These questions should be able to be answered in your manuscript.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
5.Line 240: This is not a Table. Please try to modify this figure to only include one editable caption placed under the figure.
Responses: It has been modified.
6.Lines 271-274, 291-296: This is not the place to highlight past pertinent literature. Details about such efforts should have already been given in the previous section. Similarities to these methodologies should have also been stated earlier in the manuscript.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
7.Line 315-323: This part of the manuscript needs to be rephrased.
Responses : This section has already been corrected.
8.Line 327: Please modify this figure so the red zig-zag line does not show.
Responses : This figure has already been corrected.
9.Lines 341,344: Please be consistent with the punctuation marks used.
Responses : This section has already been corrected.
10.Lines 360, 374, 417: The table caption is not correctly placed. The captions for figure 7 and figure 9 are not correctly placed.
Responses: It has been modified.
11.Line 454: "
Conclusion: I do not think there is a need to create subsections, since the text is not that lengthy. However, the findings should be explained in more detail.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
12.Lines 525-534: You should elaborate on future research directions emerging from the results of your research.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
References & In-text Citations: Please abide by the journal's in-text citation and reference guidelines.
Submission Date
19 February 2023
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, I recommend the authors review the content in order to include the aforementioned comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors 2
1.- All the references included in the last part are not following the rules defined in the Style Guide for MDPI Journals, please follow the main rule: “Title of the article. Journal Abbreviation Year, Volume”. In particular, the journal abbreviation must be follows.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
2.-. The authors should clearly indicate if tables, diagrams and figures are “source own elaboration” or not. Please review all figures and tables. And also, the tables are not following the template of the Journal. Please review the guideline information for authors.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
3.- Author Contributions and Conflicts of Interest sections are missed. Please, include them.
4.- Abstract: It is too large. It is not understandable that such detailed results of the research are also included in the same section. Please, reduce this introduction.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
5.- Lines 46 to 58: There are lot of information with only one reference. Please, could you include additional them to justified the content of this introduction section.
Responses: This section has already been corrected.
6.- Line 56: The reference to Anca Madar is not according to the academic rules. Please, review this concept. Same in lines 64 and 65, etc.
Responses: It has already been corrected.
7.- Research limitations are usually included in the last part of the manuscript, not at the beginning in the section 1.2. Also, it is not appropriate to include in the same section the research scope together with the limitations.
Responses: This section has already Corrected in accordance with the comments
8.- I’ve not been able to find a proper justification to use the Fuzzy theory, and no other. Please, could you explain?
Responses: Reply to the fourth research objective in the study's purpose
9.- The photographs included in the manuscript do not provide added value. Please, could you remove them or include in an Annex?
9.Point 9 : The photographs included in the manuscript do not provide added value. Please, could you remove them or include in an Annex??
Responses: Extra photos from the flow sheet have been removed as suggested
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The paper highlights a fuzzy method to identify toy materials suited to children’s preferences via a survey. The manuscript resembles a case study rather than an academic paper.
2. It is unsure how the motivations behind this research are linked to the sustainability theme of this journal.
3. What are other fuzzy approaches used in similar studies? Do provide more information on the various techniques that can be used to match product modules to user preferences/ requirements.
4. The novelty relating to the fuzzy-based methodology used is unclear, and more elaboration is required to highlight the scientific contributions of this approach.
5. What tools and software are used for the experiment? Based on the current manuscript, it is impossible to recreate the experiment and achieve the same results.
6. Why are the five attributes (weight, smell, …) most important in the selection process? What other attributes can be considered?
7. Research lacks future direction. How would researchers build on this work?
Author Response
3.Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The paper highlights a fuzzy method to identify toy materials suited to children’s preferences via a survey. The manuscript resembles a case study rather than an academic paper.
Responses:
This paper explores children's preferences for wood characteristics within the context of their sensory and material cognition, and has the academic significance of this topic. The research examines a range of children, rather than a small or specific group, and the revised research objectives and conclusions are applicable to other contexts beyond the scope of a case study."
- It is unsure how the motivations behind this research are linked to the sustainability theme of this journal.
Responses:
Please refer to the revised article and conclusion
- What are other fuzzy approaches used in similar studies? Do provide more information on the various techniques that can be used to match product modules to user preferences/ requirements.
Responses:
Please refer to the revised article and conclusion
- The novelty relating to the fuzzy-based methodology used is unclear, and more elaboration is required to highlight the scientific contributions of this approach.
Responses:
Please refer to the revised article and conclusion
- What tools and software are used for the experiment? Based on the current Responses:
In Chapter 2, the study's materials and research methods were described in detail. The SPSS V25 software was used for statistical analysis, and fuzzy operators and trigonometric functions of fuzzy theory were employed to analyze fuzzy semantics. The experimental procedure was presented in a flowchart, with sections 2.4, 3.1, and 3.2 providing further explanation. Chapter 3 outlined how SPSS V25 was used to obtain descriptive statistical analysis results, and fuzzy transport equations were utilized to derive the 95% maximum upper limit, total average, and 95% minimum lower limit values from the experimental data. The resulting analysis was obtained using SPSS statistical software.
- Why are the five attributes (weight, smell, …) most important in the selection process? What other attributes can be considered?
Responses:
the purpose of this study is to investigate children's preferences for sensory and wood surface characteristics. Other
attributes are not within the scope of this research and will not be discussed further.
Taste and hearing are not related to wood preference and will not be elaborated on in this study.
- Research lacks future direction. How would researchers build on this work?
Responses:
It has already been added to the conclusion.
Submission Date
19 February 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract: The abstract should be a single paragraph. A punctuation mark is missing at the end of the abstract.
Line 42: Why is the author's first name mentioned here but not in line 73? Please be consistent with your citation formatting.
Introduction: As already pinpointed in the first review report: Section 1 is too long and should be divided into smaller sections. An introduction to the topic under study should be the first section where the research scope and objectives are briefly stated (Section 1).
Literature Review: The literature review should be a separate section (Section 2). In the literature review, the authors discuss pertinent terms and give context to the reader as far as the field under study is concerned. However, no relevant studies to the one being carried out (with similar methodologies or not) are presented. Is it the first study attempting these objectives, i.e., to investigate the sensory preferences of children regarding the material and characteristics of wooden or other type of toys? If so, it should be stated in the manuscript. Either way, relevant papers attempting similar objectives, following similar methodologies or not, should be mentioned.
Research purposes & Research scope: These two subsections should be merged into one section (Section 3), since the latter is a very small section. Research purposes should result from the literature review. The reason why this research is conducted is a research gap in the literature, which however, is not mentioned and should be.
Lines 27, 41, 44, 48, 56, 58, 83, 110, 132, 140, 174, 181, 189, 200, 226 etc.: There are multiple formatting/ spelling errors in the manuscript etc. Also, the text alignment as well as line and paragraph spacing keep changing. Please thoroughly check your manuscript for such errors.
Figure 6: It should be mentioned earlier in the text.
Figure 10: There is a paragraph between the figure and its caption.
Author Response
Abstract: The abstract should be a single paragraph. A punctuation mark is missing at the end of the abstract.
Responses: It has been modified.
Line 42: Why is the author's first name mentioned here but not in line 73? Please be consistent with your citation formatting.
Responses: It has been modified.
Introduction: As already pinpointed in the first review report: Section 1 is too long and should be divided into smaller sections. An introduction to the topic under study should be the first section where the research scope and objectives are briefly stated (Section 1).
Responses: It has been modified.
Literature Review: The literature review should be a separate section (Section 2). In the literature review, the authors discuss pertinent terms and give context to the reader as far as the field under study is concerned. However, no relevant studies to the one being carried out (with similar methodologies or not) are presented. Is it the first study attempting these objectives, i.e., to investigate the sensory preferences of children regarding the material and characteristics of wooden or other type of toys? If so, it should be stated in the manuscript. Either way, relevant papers attempting similar objectives, following similar methodologies or not, should be mentioned.
Responses: It has been modified. Please refer to Article and Line 133-139,101-112.
Research purposes & Research scope: These two subsections should be merged into one section (Section 3), since the latter is a very small section. Research purposes should result from the literature review. The reason why this research is conducted is a research gap in the literature, which however, is not mentioned and should be.
Responses: It has been modified. Please refer to Article and Line 141,143-144.
Lines 27, 41, 44, 48, 56, 58, 83, 110, 132, 140, 174, 181, 189, 200, 226 etc.: There are multiple formatting/ spelling errors in the manuscript etc. Also, the text alignment as well as line and paragraph spacing keep changing. Please thoroughly check your manuscript for such errors.
Responses: It has been modified. Please review Article.
Figure 6: It should be mentioned earlier in the text.
Responses: It has been modified. Please refer to Line 248.
Figure 10: There is a paragraph between the figure and its caption.
Responses: It has been modified. Please refer to Line 401.
Submission Date
19 February 2023
Date of this review
27 Mar 2023 15:01:00
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, I recommend the authors to review again the content in order to fulfill the main rules for writing the manuscript
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Article: Application of Fuzzy Theory to the Investigation of Children’s Preference for Wooden Toy Materials – A Case Study of Rocking Horses.
Journal: Sustainability - 2261574
Second Review
The authors of this article have presented a new and updated version of their manuscript.
Please, find the below some comments and suggestions to be considered by the authors already listed in my first review:
1.- All the references included in the last part are not following the rules defined in the
Style Guide for MDPI Journals, please follow the main rule: “Title of the article. Journal Abbreviation Year, Volume”. In particular, the journal abbreviation must be follows.
à Non-compliance, still not corrected, please read carefully the Style Guide.
Responses:
This section has been modified. Please refer to Line 529-565.
2.-. The authors should clearly indicate if tables, diagrams and figures are “source own elaboration” or not. Please review all figures and tables. And also, the tables are not following the template of the Journal. Please review the guideline information for authors.
Non-compliance, still not corrected.
Responses:
This section has been modified. Please refer to Line :130,200,213,226,238,249,312,340,362,379,401,421,441,464
3.- Author Contributions and Conflicts of Interest sections are missed. Please, include them.
- Responses:
Please refer to 519-527.
4.- Abstract: It is too large. It is not understandable that such detailed results of the research are also included in the same section. Please, reduce this introduction.
- OK, the abstract has been reduced.
5.- Lines 46 to 58: There are lot of information with only one reference. Please, could you include additional them to justified the content of this introduction section.
à OK
6.- Line 56: The reference to Anca Madar is not according to the academic rules. Please, review this concept. Same in lines 64 and 65, etc.
à OK
7.- Research limitations are usually included in the last part of the manuscript, not at the beginning in the section 1.2. Also, it is not appropriate to include in the same section the research scope together with the limitations.
à OK
8.- I’ve not been able to find a proper justification to use the Fuzzy theory, and no other. Please, could you explain?
à OK
9.- The photographs included in the manuscript do not provide added value. Please, could you remove them or include in an Annex?
à OK
In general, I recommend the authors to review again the content in order to fulfill the main rules for writing the manuscript
I do suggest the authors to take into account my comments, and this is the reason I recommend to accept after minor revision, due to the article has some areas for improvement above mentioned.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Still unclear how the work attributes to sustainability issues.
2. Is there any significance in targeting students between 8-12 years of age?
3. What are alternative methods to resolve this problem statement, and why is your method better?
4. It is not helpful to state “refer to the revised article and conclusion” for many of the technical questions. Where in the revised articles are the answers? State clearly the lines.
Author Response
- Still unclear how the work attributes to sustainability issues.
Responses:
The section has been added. Please refer to lines 38-50.
Is there any significance in targeting students between 8-12 years of age?
Responses:
Please refer to lines 172-175.
- What are alternative methods to resolve this problem statement, and why is your method better?
Responses:
Please refer to lines 99-112, 133-139.
- It is not helpful to state “refer to the revised article and conclusion” for many of the technical questions. Where，in the revised articles are the answers? State clearly the lines.
Responses:
Follow your suggestions to answer the last comment:
2. It is unsure how the motivations behind this research are linked to the sustainability theme of this journal.
Responses: : Please refer to lines 38-50.
- What are other fuzzy approaches used in similar studies? Do provide more information on the various techniques that can be used to match product modules to user preferences/ requirements.
Responses:
Please refer to lines 99-112, 133-139.
4. The novelty relating to the fuzzy-based methodology used is unclear, and more elaboration is required to highlight the scientific contributions of this approach.
Responses:
Please refer to Article and Line 141,143-144.
- Research lacks future direction. How would researchers build on this work?
Responses:
Please refer to Article and Line 511-517.
Submission Date
19 February 2023
Date of this review
Mar 2023 09:21:42
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
