Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At the end of the attach file the overall summery of the paper was provided

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for valuable remarks and suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article titled "SENSITIVITY OF MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS METHODS IN RURAL LAND CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS RANKING presents the issue of land consolidation in an interesting way. It is worth examining the literature and checking how it was implemented in other countries, for example in Poland. The presented research properly implements the objectives and scope of the journal. The conclusions are formulated in a clear and accurate way. The analyzed area should also be presented graphically - on a map, so that the reader can orientate himself in the area. Please explain exactly why such methods were chosen for the research /Basically, there are two possible groups of methods: one based on a qualitative approach (DELPHI, SWOT) and one based on quantitative approaches (AHP, VIKOR, SAW, TOPSIS, etc.)/. These studies used four methods (AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR and SAW) for multi-criteria analysis and with three ways of defining weights (consistent, modified or quasi-consistent and freely specified without concern for consistency). Please explain why the weights were determined in this way? Tabular summaries are presented in an interesting and clear way. The text is written in an understandable way, in "acceptable" English.

Please also send explanations to the reviewer.

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have seven points of minor revision for this manuscript. Please see the attached PDF file. Thanks 🙏

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report of article land-2816668

 

In brief, the paper titled “Sensitivity of Multi Criteria Analysis Methods in Rural Land Consolidation Projects Ranking”

 

(a) is a very exciting work, providing interesting novelties;

(b) provides a comparison technique of well-known MCDM methods AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, SAW);

(b) applies the selected methodological approaches generally solidly;

(c) fits the journal’s scope and standards.

 

General findings related to the manuscript

The rest of the reviewer’s comments focus on the possibility of more significant impacts on the research community. Although, there will also be some essential structural comments. In general, the manuscript has great potential, but in its present form, it has some weak points.

The detailed comments following the structure of the manuscript are presented in the following:

 

(1)

The introduction does not identify an exact research gap in the literature. Thus, it can not be answered why is this research necessary to read. 

Please create a solid research gap identification and state some research questions.

 

(2)

Contextual background section?

A real contextual background section is missing in the manuscript related to the MCDM universe. The background of the MCDM method selection is missing. The state-of-the-art introduction related to the MCDM universe is also missing. Please explain why AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and SAW were applied as assessment techniques. (There are a lot of other possible options, that can be suitable for the evaluation.) Please introduce the advantages of the application of these methods instead of other methods.

Please refer to at least the following articles and other works and establish a solid MCDM background for the manuscript:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221703000201?via%3Dihub

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/11/213

 

(3)

Another problem is that some novelties of the manuscript originated from sensitivity analysis of MCDM methods. However, the theoretical background of the sensitivity analyses is hardly introduced.

Please, create a solid background of sensitivity analyses of MCDM methods, and link your work to the mainstream of this subject.

 

(4)

Please add an overview of the article structure at the end of the section.

 

(5)

The background of the evaluation is hardly introduced (only in three rows: 110-112.) Please provide more detailed information related to the background of the research.

 

(6)

The results are introduced well, it is virtue of the manuscript. It is not the same with the “discussion” part of the manuscript, which exists only in the name of the section. There is no real discussion in the manuscript since the results of the research are not put into the light of previous studies, the results do not reflect to other studies, there are no linkages created with the scientific community. As the result of the previously written, this manuscript stands alone in the scientific universe, which should not be right.

Please provide a solid discussion section.

 

(7)

The manuscript should also be enriched by adding the brief description of the limitations of the study and by adding the future research plans. 

 

In general:

The manuscript has significant potential, but in its present form, the manuscript has some major weaknesses. The reviewer suggests major changes before publication based on the previously written.

 

 

 

11.01.2024

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second review report of article land-2816668

 

The reviewer is pleased to note that the paper improved significantly, and most of the comments were addressed by the author well. Based on significant changes in the text, the overall scientific merit of the paper developed. In general, the reviewer appreciates the efforts of the author in reworking the paper.

 

Some typos are still in the text (for example line 7 “quantitive”), please check the manuscript carefully.

 

Overall proposal:

 

After correcting typos, the reviewer suggests publishing the paper in its present form.