Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some minor comments:

• Figure 2: C1 to C6 have changed the labels (C) and (R)
• What about CR of C10 and C14? They are around 0.1 that may suggest inconsistency for the comparison matrix.
• Are your results applicable to other scenarios?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

as authors of the publication, we thank you for comments that have improved the quality of our publication. The annex contains the answers to the questions. Selected and corrected parts of the publication are marked in yellow in the text.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript entitled: The selection of anchoring system for floating houses 2

by means of AHP method,

This paper presents the selection of the most advantageous anchoring system for floating houses, in Poland, through AHP method.

The paper is well written and clear.

The methodology is well explained, although the description of AHP could be summarize since it can be found in several books and articles, apart from Saaty’s publications. Check formula (7).

It could be interesting for the reader to know how the authors faced the problem of inconsistency during the session of brainstorming.

The results are well explained, all the matrices were consistent, but I miss the discussion of the results, what does the selection of mooring lines suppose? Discuss the results with previous literature. Which new knowledge does this study provide?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,  

As authors of the publication, we thank you for comments that have improved the quality of our publication. The annex contains the answers to the questions. Selected and corrected parts of the publication are marked in yellow in the text.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have followed reviewers' recommendations.