Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper submitted to the Buildings journal is interesting and has scientific potential, but requires some corrections. Here are the most important of them, in my opinion:

1. Why the authors chose the Saaty Scaling Law [29] to determine the importance of different indicators, as shown in Table 1? Please explain.

2. Why demographic data are collected from official websites of city statistical bureau of 2015 and 2016 years? The data may be out of date. Is it possible to obtain data from the last 2 years at the most?

3. In table 3 please provide data in SI units.

4. On page 10 it is stated that 6 experts were used. On what basis were their selection made? They could be inexperienced workers or experienced workers. This is not clear from the text.

5. Please clearly indicate the novelty of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript shows how to use fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to evaluate the work level of the dispatcher in Chinese cities' transportation networks. It good fits the journal scope. 

Found shortcomings: 

1. The authors should explain all abbreviations, even in the abstract section.

2. In the text are many problems with language. The authors should use support from a pro checker or native speakers. 

3. No recent (from the last four years) publications are on the reference list. The authors should add recent, high-level (high Sitecore and/or Impact factor) items to the publication list. The authors should rebuild the introduction (background of subject research) and the conclusion based on new publications on the reference list. 

4. Chapters have no introductions. For example, directly after the title of chapter 2 is the title of sub-chapter 2.1. Readers expect some introduction before the next level sub-chapter.  

5. In the keyword sections shud be keywords, not sentences. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This version looks better, almost perfect. But still, there are no short introductions between chapters and subchapters and sub-subchapters: between 3 and 3.1; between 3.4 and 3.4.1. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf