Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimizing CO₂ and NH₃ Removal by Scenedesmus dimorphus Photobioreactors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is somewhat interesting, but needs further improvement.

1-The abstract should focus on the main contribution of the paper. Please discuss less about the background. What is the criticism and gap analysis for academic literature that attempts to provide a solution?

 

 

2-.The title is very long.

3-The motivation should be clarified. Why MCDM?, why WASPA,S MAIRCA, ARAS, MABAC, COPRAS?

4- CILOS and GRA are proposed by the authors. So what are the main contributions of the paper? I think the authors should provide more details of the background of the case study.

5-A preliminary section is needed to introduce some basic knowledge about GILOS & GRA. Some further discussions about how the criteria are selected should be discussed in the paper.

6-What is the criticism and gap analysis for academic literature that attempts to provide a solution?

7-The originality and the importance of this work are not clearly understandable. The authors should work on this and prove that why this work is valuable. A comparative study should be added to verify the advantages of the proposed method.

8- I think the authors should provide more details of the conlusion? what is your future study?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Accept in present form