Zeroes of Multifunctions with Noncompact Image Sets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper is interesting and can be publish after eliminated some significant shortcomings. The list of my comments is as following:

1. In the introduction, you need to explain the research status, advantages and disadvantages of other scholars, and point out both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Research foundation to be made proper.

2. The paper does not address the stated objectives of the research very well, especially, I miss a clear list of “referents”, of papers that engage in work that is like the one presented in the paper. It might be helpful to indicate what is new. Then the contributions to the wider literatures could be added. Therefore, I think the literatures are not enough for the traditional and proposal model, the literature review should be added in section 2.

3. It is suggested to update the literature part by considering some latest and related studies, especially published between 2020-23 in order to improve the quality and content or the article. Also provide the access data for each used web link in bibliography.

4. In section 4, the authors should be to explained the results: (1) data sources (2) why do you take this case (3)  if you take other cases or models, should be verify proposed model.

5. The conclusion should be included section 5 and expands on how the findings contribute to the body of knowledge.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

We greatly appreciate the thorough review and the valuable comments provided. They have significantly contributed to refining the paper, enhancing its quality, and aligning it with the academic rigor expected of this journal. Here is a detailed response to each of the comments:

1. Research Foundation in the Introduction:

   • We've now elaborated on the current research status in our field, acknowledging both the advantages and shortcomings of previous works by other scholars.
   • The novelty and relevance of our study's objectives have been emphasized, ensuring the reader comprehends the unique perspective our research offers.

2. Addressing Stated Objectives and Literature Review:

   • We've bolstered the content to ensure that the paper addresses its objectives comprehensively.
   • A dedicated section has been added, listing referents and distinguishing our work from other similar research endeavors. This provides clarity about our unique contributions and how they fit within the broader research context.
   • The literature review in Section 2 has been expanded to adequately reflect both traditional models and the novel aspects of our proposal.

3. Literature Update with Latest Studies:

   • Based on your suggestion, we've updated the literature review to incorporate studies published between 2020 and 2023, ensuring the paper reflects the most recent advancements in the field.
   • Furthermore, to maintain transparency and ease of access, we have provided access data for each web link referenced in the bibliography no open access to any paper (at least from my country). І

4. Expanding Section 4 - Results:

   • We concur with your observation regarding the absence of practical examples in the "Examples of Applications" section. While our primary goal was to offer a descriptive analysis, we acknowledge the significance of providing concrete, tangible examples. While we plan to delve deeper into this in our subsequent research, we will incorporate this feedback in our upcoming revisions.

5. Inclusion and Expansion of the Conclusion:

   • As suggested, we've introduced a conclusion as Section 5. This conclusion serves to encapsulate the study's salient points, offering readers a concise summary while emphasizing how our findings augment the existing body of knowledge.

In conclusion, we hope that the revisions made in light of your feedback elevate the paper to the standards of the journal. We remain grateful for your insights and guidance in this revision process.

Reviewer 2 Report

See the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor.

Author Response

please attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue has been formally revised. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more critical remarks.

Minor spell check.