Application of the Fuzzy MCDM Model for the Selection of a Multifunctional Machine for Sustainable Waste Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is dedicated to the relevant issue of developing decision-making systems, including in the field of waste management. To optimize the material, the following comments should be taken into account:

1. It is recommended to revise the abstract. Phrases that lack specific meaning (e.g., the first sentence) should be removed. More details should be added regarding the model's characteristics, quantitative indicators of project implementation, and a brief summary of the analysis results.
2. In my opinion, the content of the article (lines 109-117) is not necessary for this paper. Instead, the introduction should include a review of past and ongoing scientific studies on this topic.
3. The literature review should be placed in the Introduction section.
4. Please provide the full expansion of abbreviations when they are first mentioned in the text.
5. The section "Literature Review" fully covers the relevance of the issue under consideration but does not address the scientific background or the current state of research on the topic. At the beginning of the article, it is necessary to provide an explanation of what FullEX, Fuzzy M-FulleX, TFN, and so on are. For this purpose, it is still suggested to move the "Literature Review" to the Introduction, place less emphasis on the relevance of the problem, and focus more on the current state of research, including the development and applicability of the various models discussed. Otherwise, in my opinion, both sections become less informative.
6. Section 2.2.2 requires a brief explanation before starting the calculation procedure.
7. It is necessary to expand section 3.1 with a direct description of the case study, including the research objectives and goals, limiting factors, and assumptions.
8. Please explain in more detail the principle by which the number of experts was selected.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank them for their efforts to the management of this journal.

We thank the reviewers for their positive comments and suggestions to enhance our manuscript. We studied them and revised the manuscript thoroughly. Each comment of the reviewers followed by our response to it is given below. We hope the revised manuscript will be acceptable for publication.

Replies are provided in pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study combines MDCM and fuzzy theory to construct a new model for evaluating sustainable waste management machines. This combination provides a completely new perspective and addresses the limitations in practical decision-making models. However, there are significant problems with this paper:

The literature review is well presented in 2.1. However, this literature should be categorized and what results have been achieved in past studies?
The research methods and steps of this paper are presented in 2.2. It is recommended to include visual aids such as charts or flow charts in these methods and steps to improve the readability of this paper.
In the conclusion, the practical and scientific contributions of this paper should be more clearly emphasized. Although these contributions can be inferred from the text, they need to be clearly stated and emphasized.
In the discussion, it is necessary to provide a more specific reflection on the achievements of this paper compared to previous studies. References should be made to some of the previously cited studies and a clear overview of the added value of this paper compared to these references should be given.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank them for their efforts to the management of this journal.

We thank the reviewers for their positive comments and suggestions to enhance our manuscript. We studied them and revised the manuscript thoroughly. Each comment of the reviewers followed by our response to it is given below. We hope the revised manuscript will be acceptable for publication.

Replies are provided in pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a novel and scientifically rigorous study on sustainable waste management, focusing on the development and application of the Fuzzy M-FullEX method integrated with the Fuzzy ROV model to rank multifunctional machines. After review, it is recommended to make the following changes

1. The introduction establishes the problem effectively; it could benefit from a more concise statement of research objectives. Explicitly state the research gap and how the new model bridges it.
2. The review of the literature covers a broad range of sources, but there is limited discussion on recent advancements in waste management technology. Incorporating studies from the past 2–3 years would strengthen the theoretical foundation.
3. The expert selection process could be expanded upon. Clarify the criteria for choosing experts beyond their years of experience and education levels.
4. Consider discussing potential biases or limitations in expert judgment and how these were mitigated.
5. The comparison of alternative methods (Fuzzy OPARA, MARCOS, SAW, WASPAS) is insightful, but it would be helpful to briefly explain why these specific methods were chosen for comparison.
6. The interpretation of results could go deeper into why the Venieri machine outperformed others. Are there broader design principles or technical advantages that can be generalized to other contexts?
7. At the conclusions, highlight how this study contributes not only to waste management in B&H but also to global efforts in sustainable development.
8. There are minor grammatical errors and a few awkwardly phrased sentences. A thorough proofreading would enhance readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are minor grammatical errors and a few awkwardly phrased sentences. A thorough proofreading would enhance readability.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank them for their efforts to the management of this journal.

We thank the reviewers for their positive comments and suggestions to enhance our manuscript. We studied them and revised the manuscript thoroughly. Each comment of the reviewers followed by our response to it is given below. We hope the revised manuscript will be acceptable for publication.

Replies are provided in pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the thorough revisions you have made. I can confirm that the comments and suggestions provided earlier appear to have been addressed in your updated manuscript. Your efforts in refining the abstract, reorganizing the literature review, clarifying the methodology, and expanding the case study have noticeably improved the clarity and overall quality of your paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A necessary and appropriate review has been carried out. The article is ready for publication in its present form.